Yes, exactly. I fed you complicated nonsense that you could've easily seen through but instead you pretended to understand. It's Emperor's new clothes stuff.

Stop saying this. A bot can bet or raise. It doesn't require any awareness.

You are incapable of an exploitative fold to a L3 thinkers value bet with the part of your range he has beat? Or incapable of an exploitative call to a L3 thinkers bluff with the part of your range that beats villains bluff range? Idk but thought I'd give it a crack.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What did I just read

lol Jacques you did actually get part of the answer there! It was a little bit of a stumble over a correct answer but it is right!!

Folding to his value is Level Two, but calling his bluffs (attempt to deceive) is not possible unless you're capable of Level Four.

Re-bluffing and calling bluffs are both ways to play back against the opponents deception, and so both are impossible without Level Four.

Good answer man, but there is still a perfect answer out there... Nobody has explained the type of move a master would make using Level Four. Where's Slanksky when you need him eh!? Has anyone noticed that over all these years he never posts after me. I get the feeling he's trying to avoid me lol

Lol Bladesman you didn't need to go to such efforts to make me look foolish. My 'perfect question' has had three different correct answers so far and still it hasn't been answered the way I wanted lol!

... Are you able to trick a computer? Make it think you're going to do one thing and then do another?? I know the standard poker bots don't work like that, but I don't know how advanced programmers have gotten nowadays in general??... I bet I could help them design a program that strategises like a human.

(Remember mate, my definition of a bluff contains deception)

So Rob! It seems like you get the general jist of Level Four now!! When we respond to Level Three we are using Level Four. Or at least, we are using it in that lesser way -We are playing back against our opponents bluffs..... There is still much to learn though grasshopper.

Once deception comes into the game we would still play honestly to some degree. We would still play for value... Sun Tzu said that there are two types of attack. A direct attack and a disguised attack. But he wasn't saying that every attack would be either disguised or direct. Some strategies would be more disguised, and some more direct. In Poker a purely Level Three move would be what is commonly known as a pure bluff, but there is usually some part of the villains range which we beat come showdown and so value, or Level Two, is usually a factor. In the same way deception is almost always a factor too. One hand might be more disguised than another, and if the opponent knows exactly what you hold you should probably just fold.

If you want to know how far to sway towards deception, or value, you have to look to Level One. Which is the hardest Level to crack... The goal in Poker is to make chips. And so we would only deceive the opponent if it would make us more chips than by being honest.

You say that the vast majority of players are soundly based at Level Three but this is slightly wrong. 'Soundly based', does not describe what is happening here. I have spent years explaining this stuff to different players and if the player is experienced they will almost always violently reject any unrecognised higher Level theory. These players aren't choosing to stick at a certain Level. They are stuck at a certain Level!! They are unable to comprehend higher Level theory, which means that they are unable to see the reasons why I make certain plays. Do you see how valuable this information is! When I'm not kindly teaching my opponents how to play, when I'm facing them at the tables, when they can't even see my two cards, it's almost impossible for them to realise what I'm doing and so instead of playing back against me the poor guys just go completely mental lol. They scream abuse at me all day long.

And mate, check this out, the vast majority of players are not stuck at Level Three. They are all stuck at Level Two! Even poor Rusty seems to struggle immensely with Level Three logic. Over the years he has done well not to ban me from these forums, but still, he has had a lot of little eppies when I describe no more than I have in this thread. Right now he is probably trying his hardest to ignore everything I write lol. Looking at this thread is like dripping lava into the eyes of an experienced player lol.

Perfect sense



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, the forum is for knowledge and fun.

This thread has both, again 10/10.

The biggest takeaway for knowledge is that there are levels, and humans use them whether or no they know it or not. The best and safest route to the monies is to operate firmly one step up from your opponent.

I have a problem that I assume they are level 3 because level 4 is my wheelhouse.

This is profitable, but not the most profitable if they are struggling with level 3, and getting tired and frustrated and making level 2 mistakes.

Thank you for the thread, the book can only be a positive, interesting, and informative read.

My only addition to level exploits is that there is math involved, that can be closely approximated by humans who enjoy math, but not GTO, and thus don't get the enjoyment of theoretical math and poker together.

IE, this player will take this line this often because math.

Cheers!

Rob


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Made perfect sense to me. Bet sizing is usually the indicator if a lvl 3 is betting for value. This has made them plenty of lvl 3 winnings. IF villain is rock solid lvl 3 and believes himself to be as good at this as you are (dont we all) you can fold or raise exploitively the hands that he would expect you to call with, unless he is actually lvl 4 and you are not allowing a lvl four motivation, and lvl 4 response.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was already pretty easy.

Depending on your definition of "trick" probably not. I can think of examples outside poker that some people would call "tricking" the software, but it's probably not what you mean by it.

Again, the computer can still make any of the following plays at some frequency: check, bet, fold, raise, call. This is what I mean when I say that there is no "move" that a non-thinking machine couldn't make. And that's why I keep asking you to just tell me what you mean by "move".

Not a shot but a legit question, what stakes are you playing, online/live and wanna show a graph?

It would be harder for him to peddle snake oil if he did that.

The article is not difficult, but your interpretation of it is.
I mean are there any levels of a certain Level?
“What does my opponent have?”
I can ascribe him the only hand or flushdraw or "he has wide something and has to fold much"
Why cant the player bluff at Level 2? He put the opponent on hands, a scary card has come, he has nothing and he heard that the only way he can win is to bet

you two know each other... or even worse scenario may take place

If you need any more proof of how full of **** this guy is read this (a blurb promoting his book): http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/zeroplusone-publishing

Doing some digging, this looks like the same guy:

http://www.ukbusinessforums.co.uk/th...r-book.373446/

how is this thread so devoid of information, yet has so many replies.

I am all for free-enterprise, capitalism, and all that good stuff. If you are trying to get a book out, I hope it is a little more clear and actually states something. There is very little actually stated in this thread aside from egocentric visceral redirects.

So many words and very little substance, a book is going to have to be big on substance. It is titled 'the perfect question', but it is not at all. There are many correct answers. It is like asking 'what is on a menu in an Italian restaurant but not in a Japanese one', completely open as to the amount of correct answers, but all are wrong unless someone picks the item you seek.

Philosophical theorems are more than empty statements. If you're book is more of the same, you will be relegated to a self publishing role and hope to sell it for $.50.

Ok, ok, lets just bring this to an end. 1400 views will have to be enough...

And so here it is!! The correct answer in its entirety (I am sorry for the wording error in my question):


*********************************************


There are actually two types of play that you become capable making at Level Four.


- You can play back against the opponents bluffs.


- Or, instead, you can induce your opponents bluffs.



**********************************************



..... Rusty, quick man, close the thread!! Those crazies are swarming us again!! Do it now Rusty, before one of them posts another promotion for my book...... Rusty quick!............. Rusty??............... NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Here I am, letting this thread go on, and all you want to do is imply that somehow I clamp down on you too hard? Try harder at buddhism.

Here is a new question to keep this thread alive: how can answer both be a cheat and not correct?

A second question: why would playing back at someone's bluff be your first idea and inducing bluffs the second?

Just to add my .02 poker is a game of information. People who can collect and process information better than their opponents wins.

Psychological conditions, physical tells, etc are all information, but this arbitrary levels thing is just a way of categorizing the way we do things.

I am all for taking old ideas and repackaging them to make it easier for people to learn, but clearly many people struggle to grasp your message Yadoula8 what value does your repackaging bring?

Also you claim that people attack you and while some do, most of us in the beginning kindly pointed out flaws in your logic and the delivery of your material. You choose to see these as personal attacks when they were nothing more than people giving advice as they normally do on forums. After awhile we all gave up because it was clear you're either trolling or have such a huge ego you won't or can't listen to outside advice.

I bet if you actually got all the experts you wanted to read your book and provide comments you would reject any advice they gave you and then try to explain to them why their advice was wrong.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

Ok, well, none of you guys have actually pointed out what I've said wrong. Many of you seem to think I haven't even said anything...

Where was my mistake? Point it out. "This sentence is incorrect"???

The initial question was what are you NOT capable of doing.

By the way, my first comment was correct, too.

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5&postcount=13

Just been through all this, and not sure if i fully getting the jist, but there are no moves you are incapable of doing if you dont think at level 4 you can make them all, as a human brain jumps willingly through the levels. Its just whether your conscious of playing against a bluff or looking to make an opponent bluff. Or conscious of which level your using.

Errr... Are you serious! You crazy guys are getting weirdly anal. And what was that from Rusty! Be a better Buddhist?? I'm not even a Buddhist lol.

You were wrong. This "value bluff", if the definition I have of it is correct, is actually Level Five.

Sound mate!

Your getting there - The subconscious usually takes care of these Levels for us, and that is what enables us to make all the different moves that we can make.

At Level Two we make Value. At Level Three we bluff. And at Level Four defend against (or induce) the villains bluffs.

Whilst we're consciously thinking to ourselves that the opponent is bluffing, unconsciously we are using Level Four. And so without Level Four, we would not be able to play back against those bluffs.