I've tried many times to write this thread, it took 7 months before you let me put it up...

Thought you weren't allowed mindless abuse on these forums, that's about all I've received since being here from GTO guys and you back them up.

... Hey, if anyone does equity calculations for my 'example' rusty says he'l give you a book deal. I've had enough. Peace.

Oh you're such a victim in all of this....I feel so badly for you /sarcasm

Yadoula, comrade, you are strange company!

OP, interesting idea, I think most 2+2ers are generally too early to dismiss ideas. But it's necessary to subject any ideas or theory to testing a scientific method.

I think OP is suggesting a general strategy of playing a non-maximally exploitative strategy by altering the composition of his range and range splitting in creative ways. Definitely can be profitable if villain adjusts badly.

I think a key idea is also OP is saying he can disguise his strategy over certain amount of hand sample, because it's hard for those information and stat to converge and for villain to pick up what he's doing.

However, if OP wants people to take him seriously, he would need to convey his strategic models in a mathematical context.

It's hard to know how successful his strategy is without putting in some solid samples and calculations. The EV difference from the new strategy would depend on how often the postflop spots come (frequency of the Ax flops coming) etc. And changing the composition, and in your case, heavily unbalancing your range could lead to EV changes in other spots (if ur not 3 betting weak Ax here, where would they go, and how would they affect your other ranges and change the EV).

Definitely recommend OP or some other statisticians to build models to test on some game tree programs like crEV to calculate the EV.

Manipulating perceive ranges and range composition is definitely not an new idea and there are many variant of it (and recently talks about minimally exploitative strategies). What remains is to test them out with programs, or play a large sample of hands to confirm it (for such a vague change in strategy, would need a massive sample for this).

My own opinion is that this strategy could definitely be useful if villains readjust badly (which I do think alot do). But against a solid thinking reg, would probably develop counter adjustment once they notice your tendencies and changes if your ranges. And if you able readjust quickly again, this will at some point lead back to an equilibrium and back to GTO.

Anyone had a Level 3 revelation n realised I'm a genius yet?

The books coming along really well. 1/3 done... You will not believe what I've realised about the levels. It's no longer exclusively a poker book. I think it will be hailed as the greatest strategy book of all time. 😎

No it's not. It's entirely proper and rational to dismiss arbitrary assertions out of hand as if nothing has been said because rationally nothing actually has been said.

My arbitrary assertion (idea) is that there is a Poker God who controls who wins and loses on His own whims and loves dealing out bad beats.

Remember according to you, you can't just dismiss my assertion as nonsense. It's necessary to first subject it to "testing by a scientific method"...

Good luck with that.

Think he was just trying to defend all the violent haters who swarm over this site.

...When you can't put a theory in the theory section without being hounded only for proof, something's gone terribly wrong.

I personally think that we can't prove anything. The only reason people demand proof is because they want to trust in somebody else to tell them whether a thing is correct or not. We can know nothing. In place of knowing, we humans gather evidence which helps us to believe.

I actually now believe 100% in the existence of God. Since working on this thread I have put together divine diagrams which I think will help others believe it too.

Using these diagrams I have made sense of the Fibonacci sequence within Pascal's Triangle. I think I might have even fulfilled some end-times prophecies. It's a shame their arn't more legends like Renton here or perhaps we'd be working through these theories together. Instead, I have to hold back my most valuable information so as to refrain from screwing myself over.

If you can tell me why it's in the Mandelbrot set, I'll be your loyal follower!

Urrgh you gave me loads of extra work to do... I havnt cracked it, however, you did lead me to noticing something real important for all my work;

Nowadays I think the sequence should look a little more like this 😉

0 / 1
-----
1 / 2
3 / 5
8 / 13

The vertical divide splits the sequence into 2 separate sequences. 0, 1, 3, etc etc. What I jus realised, is that the next numbers are created by multiplying the current number by 3 and then taking away the previous number. Dunno if that's already known but I guess so??

13 x 3 - 5 = 34

If you remember what I was saying before about the number 1 being infinity and the number 2 is when that is split into two infinities. You can see how, using this equation, the Fibonacci sequence grows in on itself like two separate fractal patterns. The number 1 is surrounded by 0, inside it we find 3.

So, somewhere in here I think is the key to your puzzle, I feel that I'm close, although, I don't have the time currently to keep going on it. Maths terminology is like another language to me too remember. Id never heard of Mandelbrot or Farey before the other day. I've been trying to match all this up with it, but it looks more like a job for somebody like Heehaw than me.

Cool observation. As a recurrence relation, what you've found is that

F(n+2) = 3*F(n) - F(n-2)

which inspired me to find the generalization, which is

F(n+k) = F(k+2)*F(n) - F(k)*F(n-2)

for instance F(n+6) = 21*F(n) - 8*F(n-2)

Sound lol, trying to break that down hurts my brain. Impressive.

I have spent way too long delving into this stuff, back to work! 😅

Okay so im a noob to this level 3 stuff and this is going to sound like a really really dumb question, but how does your perceived range determine your opp. range if opp. never perceives your range to be strong even if you continously fold or if opp. never thinks OF your perceived range and only thinks of his cards and whether you bluff or not (do we throw all that level 2 + crap out the window)?.

Yes, if your opponent never considers your range, then your perceived range does not matter as you basically do not have a perceived range to him since he is not perceiving anything.

That's not correct;

Provided the villain understands the rules to the game, at the very least he will be subconsciously imagining which cards you could have. If he wernt, he would have no good reason to do anything. For example, he might well jam his 23 because he'd think it's the best hand.

If the villain were consciously putting us on a range of hands, we would certainly be able to give ourselves a more accurate perceived range, yet it is debatable whether the level 3 plays themselves would be more effective.

I think it comes down to which one you could manipulate better, a conscious mind or a sub-conscious one? Players preference I suppose.

Ahhhh I might as well tell u some more...

The subconscious already understands all the Levels... These Levels do not belong to poker, nor any game. The Levels always belonged to the mind. They are 'The Levels of the Mind.

The mind actually constricts its usual strategic calculative process so as to conform to the rules of poker, or any 'game'. This process, breaks down into Levels.

So, secretly we already understand all the levels. We don't actually need to learn them. We only need to convince our subconscious mind to release the information related to the the next Level up. If ur a beginner, with no knowledge of poker, then ur subC will happily allow you to access higher level logic in respect of poker. You need only clarify information like that at the beginning of this post.

If you are skilled master, you will have accidentally trained ur subconscious to withhold the information relating to the higher Levels. So understanding logic like that in the beginning of this post might not be so easy for somebody like Lego. He will be forced to battle with his subconscious as it deliberately denies him the ability to understand information which it already knows to be true. Usually this battle will result in the subconscious clouding Lego's mind by making him angry (which is the real reason why I face such hostility at this site).

Once you understand all that, you start to realise the true value in making plays like preadjusting; Renton and I have described it amazingly clearly between us, 6 months have passed, yet most of the skilled players on this site still don't understand it. Their subconscious will not allow them to understand it. At the tables, when they can't even see our cards, we can destroy these guys forever.

Unless they listen to me of course, as I have also found the key to unlocking the higher Levels of the mind. Experienced players need only see the perfect truth and then the higher level logic is undeniable to them. I answered your query pretty accurately at the beginning of this post, so maybe that is enough for Lego to understand that point. I doubt it though, which I why I have mapped out the entire process used by the mind to work stuff out, and then matched it up to poker.. among other things.

I do still have a couple of tiny unanswered questions, but I was forced to do all this by myself, and I'm not quite finished yet. I have already obliterated Sklanskys book, he clearly doesn't understand any of this stuff. Tsung Su was a much more worthy opponent but he only went as high as level 3, he actually seemed to make pretty clear Level 4 mistakes.

Yes it is.

your whole assumption is based on the fact that your opponent can think of anything other than "I have 2 cards and matched one of them"
kickers; opps hands; opps range ;etc.... mean nothing to this player and yes I've seen them in big money tournies and in $25-50 nlhe cash.
player raises AA and u 3-bet ; you think he cares what your range is? EVER.

That being said I do agree that your range will vary based on your opponent and your image to that player at the time, as I also agree if your opponent is wise enough to think as you point out then they are able to adjust as well.

My assumptions are based on lots of things, it's actually your argument which is based on only that one piece of information.

'He can think of nothing other than his two cards'.

I'm saying that consciously he might be aware of only his cards, as you describe, yet subconsciously he must be putting us on a range of sorts. Otherwise, his two cards would hold no purpose. His AA would beat nothing. He might as well eat his two cards. Lol, this guy would have no idea why the chips were on the table what so ever.

Your last sentence is clearly defending GTO, but look back Snowman, your whole post is like an advertisement for it... Spend much time thinking about your actual range do you? Beginners don't, not particularly. They can clearly see that the opponent has two cards though, and they understand the rules to the game. The strongest hand out of ours or there's wins.


Nice Lego, reeal clever! Not a childish response at all..... I'm obviously saying that there is never a time a person does not subconsciously consider a range for us. So your posts are clearly nonsense......


You do realise you guys are just making me repeat myself... I explain that I'm now mapping out the perfect strategic thought process and this is what 2+2 has for me... How droll.

The question was:

I gave the correct answer to the question. You changed the question to "how does our perceived range matter if our opponent never consciously considers our range, but does subconsciously consider our range". The answer you gave may be the correct answer to that question, but the answer I gave is the correct answer to the question that was actually asked.

You may also be correct that nearly everyone in the world considers his/her opponent's range at least a little (though some of those people may do so very poorly or may take actions after doing so that are very poor actions given the range that was assigned), so it may be worthwhile to point that out as you did.

However, I do believe that there actually are a lot of people whose consideration of opponents' ranges is so lacking that in many situations our perceived range really doesn't matter that much, if at all, when in pots vs. these players. I'm sure that there are probably more and more people like this the lower the stakes are and that there are a whole lot of them particularly in the lower microstakes.

Lego, Lego, Lego.... Your making really simple stuff really confusing...

I didn't change any question. I just explained how there's never a time when the villain isn't perceiving our range.

Actually, there's never a time when the villain isn't creating some form of perceived range for himself from our perspective either. This is Level 3, a constricted version of Empathy. If he weren't capable of making this calculation subconsciously, he wouldn't be able to bluff, for a start.

Bluffing is when we make our perceived range appear stronger than our actual range so as to get folds from better hands then our own... Beginners arnt able to write that sentence out, but that doesn't mean they don't just 'get it'.

On the flip-side: We've all seen beginners min-raise instead of raising bigger, they do this mainly because they're afraid of appearing strong... They're not consciously aware of the mental process which leads them to that conclusion. Their subconscious does all the calculations for them, chucks in a little fear, and then they just make the play.

So that means that Level 4 is always a factor which helps us determine the villains range too. Our perceived range is still the place where his reasoning primarily exists. At level 3, the villain is avoiding his perceived range with his actual cards so he can better take advantage of our range. So at Level 3, he still applies level 2 just as he always would.

... Lego you were sounding more convinced as that post progressed lol... Oh there a thing my brother pointed out which might help;

After my brother fully cracked level 3 he noticed a point of confusion;

Once you realise the true importance of your perceived range, you do not need to consciously consider it all the time. It's just always there in the back of your mind. You simply become aware of that part of the subconscious calculation which it's secretly been making all along.

wtf yadoula you clearly changed the question, lego's post is clearly correct and youre being blatantly ignorant if you dont agree.

It seemed simple enough to me.

That is changing the question. The original question was based on the assumption that villain doesn't consider hero's range at all. You then said that all villains always consider hero's range at least subconsciously, if not consciously, and then answered based on this new assumption.

You may be right that nearly all players give at least some minimum of consideration to their opponents' ranges, but you still changed the question. And, in my opinion, there are a lot of players, in an increasing amount the lower the stake you look at, who do give no, or so little that there isn't much difference from none, consideration to their opponents' ranges. And on top of that there are players who do such a poor job of considering their opponents' ranges or take such poor actions against their opponents' range as they perceived it that it is still as if they did not consider their opponents' range.

So, yes, I do believe that there are opponents and situations against whom and in which hero's perceived range does not matter too much and, therefore, the original question can be applicable and therefore, is actually practical.

That part of the question only makes sense only if the villain were a house plant.

In this sort of case, I do agree with Lego.

... As you guys seem rather keen on the parameters of Evox's question, I looked back at it closely...

It sounds like your unaware of this too mate;

The perceived range is created through the eyes of the villain...

If we think the villain rarely considers us to have anything strong, then we would simply take most the strength from our perceived range.

What if our opponent thinks that we're using a very balanced strategy?

Clever question...

In short; He'd put us on a balanced range.

If he thinks were balanced and will remain so, he has no reason, one way or the other, to make any play based on level 2.. And so we have no reason to make a play based on level 3.

Half of the levels are still active, those on the villains side. So he could toy with his own perceived range in an attempt to lure us from our balanced strategy... Otherwise, he can do nothing but balance himself (play level 1/infinity).

... I was deliberately avoiding game theory because it confuses the 'path of reasoning'*; When we apply game theory, we are playing at level infinity so would be presuming that the reasoning behind all the other exploitative levels which came before it still existed, only, we are making them completely obsolete by applying game theory at level 1 using the Nash equilibrium...

*When I say 'path of reasoning', what I mean is the chain of cause and effect which exists in the levels. Level 3 goes like this: We can do something with our actual cards which determines our perceived range (level3) which determines what the villain does with his range (level 2), the process ends with the taking or losing of chips (level 1).

In poker, it's only at that stage, level 3, that we gain control of the villains actions. So you might see now how deadly balancing is for our own potential win rate. We lose level 3 and with it, control of the villains actions.

Btw, in the real world, it appears to me as though it's at this stage that a creature is able to gain control over its environment?? When they develop empathy... Perhaps I'm straying from my specialised subject again lol... But I think we might make a fake level 3 range for things like rocks in order to calculate how to change them. This would be why we always liked to put faces on them I guess

so much bs in here... stop feeding?