prove higher level thinking to me

[Alex/Mugaaz]

I'm sorry but I just cannot remember the title of the post. It was posted in HSNL about 1 year ago about a multiway hand in a live game, it got a lot of attention. IIRC I think it went to level 4 or 5 and thinking that high was the reason for the correct decision, the only mitigating factors were that he may of initially given 1 or 2 of the players too narrow a hand range to start with, but even with this there it was obviously an example where 4th level thinking changing an incorrect play to a correct one. Diablo pointed out the mitigating factors, but besides that I can't remember the specifics of the hand. Hopefully my reference to it will jog someone's memory enough to post the link.

I thought the title has a referece to hand reading in but, but not certain. Hope this jogs someones memory.

I've yet to see a 4th level thinking matter HU, but between hands with 3 players where 2 of them are good and there is a 3rd player who is bad or obviously has a specific holding then 4th level play happens.

[gershwin]

As soon as you know about these different levels of thinking and you know that your opponent knows them too, all you can do is a game-theoratical based decision, on which level you will stop at this actual hand.

[GAL]

Nearly every time you check call on the river with a one pair hand to pick off a bluff you are doing this.

[alphatmw]

no, thats like level 2 thinking at the most.

i have a set, he has a missed flush draw so i will check to induce a bluff.

i have a missed draw, he checked on the river possibly because he's weak, i will bluff at the pot.

[Sparks]

[ QUOTE ]
I've yet to see a 4th level thinking matter HU,

[/ QUOTE ]
Here's a HU hand I posted a few months ago from the final table at the WSOP. I think my opponent went to level 4, and I got stuck on level 3, and lost.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...6628&page=

[SCBielski]

Once you get to level 4 thinking it essentially becomes level 2 thinking, therefore I don't think you really can achieve level 4 thinking.

[Gonso]

[ QUOTE ]
As soon as you know about these different levels of thinking and you know that your opponent knows them too, all you can do is a game-theoratical based decision, on which level you will stop at this actual hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate on this? I didn't make any sense of it.

[Shandrax]

People hardly ever go beyond level 2, because most of them think there is only one correct play for any given situation anyways. Once you try to think on deeper levels, you don't know where to stop. The sky is the limit and therefore it's not very practical.

In my opinion it should be sufficient to try to figure out the best and the second best play based on 2nd level thinking and randomize them 2:1 [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[_D&L_]

"Once you try to think on deeper levels, you don't know where to stop. The sky is the limit and therefore it's not very practical."

This he knows, that I know, that I know, that he knows.... can be summed up in two words "perfect information."

All its saying, is that I know your strategy, and u know mine. I'm not saying you can't randomize or bluff, but if you do so, your opponent knows that you do it, and how often you do it. Why? Because your opponent knows what's in your interests, and you play your interests. Thus, the best strategy you can come up with is one that maximizes return, subject to his playing the "best response" to that strategy. This is known in game theory or economics as mini-maxing.

Its not saying your opponent is going to divinely know when your bluffing, etc. But he will know how often, and if he's wrong, it is no detriment to him, because his best response automatically penalizes you for bluffing, etc, more than you are supposed to.

You don't end up mini-maxing by looking at one part of the problem half the time, and the other part of the problem the other half. So I don't think this 2:1 "higher level" of thinking ratio has any legs to it.

[josh_x]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry but I just cannot remember the title of the post. It was posted in HSNL about 1 year ago about a multiway hand in a live game, it got a lot of attention. IIRC I think it went to level 4 or 5 and thinking that high was the reason for the correct decision, the only mitigating factors were that he may of initially given 1 or 2 of the players too narrow a hand range to start with, but even with this there it was obviously an example where 4th level thinking changing an incorrect play to a correct one. Diablo pointed out the mitigating factors, but besides that I can't remember the specifics of the hand. Hopefully my reference to it will jog someone's memory enough to post the link.

I thought the title has a referece to hand reading in but, but not certain. Hope this jogs someones memory.

I've yet to see a 4th level thinking matter HU, but between hands with 3 players where 2 of them are good and there is a 3rd player who is bad or obviously has a specific holding then 4th level play happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

If this is the hand i'm thinking of it was posted by Matt Flynn of Cero or someone. He had a pair + a flush draw and like 7bet the flop AI and got it all in vs a draw and his 2nd pair held up. I'll try and find it.