I am curious to know whether anybody can answer this question:

What type of move are you incapable of making if you are incapable of the EIGHTEENTH Level of thought?




EDIT:

No, I will not provide a succinct easy to use and easy to understand definition of the 18th level.







SECOND EDIT:

Actually, to be clear, Yadoula, I actually think that some of what you say is correct. But you say it in such a complicated manner. It has already been said simpler.

It's been said wrong... I explain how it actually works.

Your 18th Level of thought is just anal nonsense. I set the test because I wanted to see if anyone else understands how exploitative theory works. And none of you do. If I had explained how it all works whilst setting the question, I would have answered the question myself.......

Oh.


Uhh ... yea my 18th level thing is nonsense. That was the point. Your 3 or 4 or 5 or 7 (whatever, over the years you changed the number of them) levels are also just anal nonsense until you very specifically define each. Even when you define them, they are likely things most good players are already doing (they just don't conceptualize them in terms of "levels").

You know, I did get that point... But I don't get your next one... Your saying that defining all the things that good players do is a bad thing?

... You do realise that is exactly what theory is, right?

I have played this game with you before and you basically just keep repeating the same thing like it's an answer.

I would say our discussion in the past was tantamount to you trying to prove to me your imaginary friend exists with a conversation as follows:

You: I have a friend name Ted.

Me: I think you are mistaken. I don't see any one and these other sources confirm they can't see, smell, hear or interact with Ted.

You: oh no Ted is real you just have to open your 3rd eye with training and you will see him.

Me: Sorry I don't think Ted is real. I took a picture where you pointed to Ted and he's not in the picture.

You: I have never heard of a picture I'll study and get back.

3 hours later

You: I am an expert in photography now and you're wrong. Even though Ted is not in the picture he is real because he has a name (Ted) and he lives at 804 west 10th street. He has a dog Kody so he must be real.

Me: Well him having a name, an address, and a dog doesn't make him real. Other people on this forum that know more than me about finding people say you are wrong as well.

You: You guys just don't get it. His name is Ted he lives at 804 10th street and has a dog named Kody. I will write his biography to help the world find out about Ted because he is the best. I mean point out something that I have said is wrong?

Me: Ok well if you are going to talk about Ted like he is real you have to prove he is real, I don't have to prove he is not real.

You: See! You can't even tell me how I am wrong you are just fighting against your brain trying to see Ted. Read my book and you'll get it.

Just because you provide information that is true either in certain ambiguous contexts or vacuous true in all contexts doesn't mean your ideas are correct or better.

As I said in my previous post your ideas are an arbitrary reorganization of old ideas and information. However, your reorganization seems to confuse people rather than provide clarity so in my opinion holds no real value.



Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

Haha dude you have completely lost it.

Yes, I do understand that this is confusing for many of you. But for many of us it is very simple. Level Three is where we learn to bluff. Level Four is where we learn to defend against bluffs, etc.

In response to an earlier post... My book is a theory book. In it I describe these Levels and I also explain exactly how to use them to calculate a play - In actual fact, I describe the method that all players use to think through their poker decisions... If you can't see the value in that, you must be going mad.

Just look at your post. Level three is where people learn to bluff. Why do you need to call it level 3?

You just described it to me perfectly with words that didn't include level 3. You just said it's a state where people learn to bluff.

So again, your decision to arbitrarily divide information that everyone already knows seems to be unnecessarily confusing so your arbitrary organization seems to hold no value.

It's like me telling you I have written a book on calculus, but the methods I use are harder to grasp and take people 10 times longer to do the work than other methods. Why should people choose my way over previous methods? That's the question people in the community are trying to get you to answer. You can't evaluate the quality of your own work.

Only people that use your work can validate it's efficacy and a lot of smart people are saying it is nonsense or ineffective (not even including myself in the smart people group).

The word "move" has never been defined in the thread and needs to be by OP and that's not being "anal". I'm really surprised this thread was never closed being that it's in the poker theory section, but that's up to the mods of course.

I didn't name the levels of thought. All I did was realise that everyone's understanding of them was wrong.

I didn't make bluffing Level Three - I just noticed that without some idea of what the opponent thinks of you, you would not be able to deceive him. Bluffing is simply what you can do at Level Three.

I didn't make that up, I worked it out. And it is no more or less complicated than it has to be. It's correct. The way that we deceive our opponent is by considering our opponents perception of us. If you can't do that well, you can't deceive your opponent well.

You don't know what that word means? Move... Manoeuvre... Action.

You guys are getting worse lol

gl with publishing your book bro

No that's my point. You didn't work anything out. Your levels are not natural laws like gravity.

You conciously choose to group things into levels and that is how you are describing them. They are completely arbitrary naming conventions you use to organize your teachings and that organization seems unnecessarily confusing.

No, they arn't lol.

To deceive our opponent we consider his perception of us, and how this will change when we make our manoeuvre.

That is a law. I did work it out. I didn't use any arbitrary words. I just explained how to make a bluff. And that is what is commonly known as Level Three... Your just going mental lol.

Right you described it to me in words that don't contain level or three. You could call it circle 3, or flight 12, or whatever and it would still be the same so you choosing (or any one choosing) to call it level 3 is the definition of arbitrary.

What was there for you to work out exactly that someone else hadn't pointed out before? What NEW information did you provide or new way to look at all old information that is better than previous ways? You haven't so what value does your way bring? In my opinion, none.

It's fine if you don't understand what I am saying or even care what I am saying. I don't expect to change your mind just provide a valid counter point to your "mysterious master" talk that seems to enamor some people that are looking for genuine information.

So you guys are now saying that I'm correct, and that everyone already understands everything I describe. You think that I'm trying to rebrand common knowledge.

... You remember that time I set that simple question about high level poker theory?
1398 of you barely had a clue what I was talking about.
(Woohoo the cleverness of the question starts to shine through)

You're also saying, again, that the Levels is the wrong word. And that it is this term which is the real cause for your confusion. And you think we could call the Levels trees instead... Let me re-iterate. I didn't name the Levels of thought. I didn't say that "At Level four we consider what the opponent thinks that we think that he holds". That description was around before me and before I came along that was about the only description you could find of this penultimate Level. Before I came along everyone thought it was really difficult to think at such a high Level, but I am showing you that in fact it is very easy. Atleast, it's easy for many of us. I'm explaining that all of us already use this Fourth Level of thought anytime we play back against the opponents bluffs.

I worked out all kinds of rediculously amazing stuff. Almost half a decade ago I set out to organise all poker theory into one formula. I attempted to discover the most efficient way in which to think through a poker decision. It was when I started putting all the different peices of the puzzle into their logical place that I started noticing all kinds of awesome things. I say awesome. They were awesome for about one second. Each revelation cost me months of work. I had to write this book over and over again.

You ask what I have found that is new... Well... I have now organised all Poker theory into one formula. In my book I describe exactly how to strategise in poker. I explain exactly what you need to think about to make a play and I even explain the order that each peice of information needs to be considered. I did work out many of the pieces of this puzzle myself, but I was trained in the same way as your average professional player before embarking on this task and nowadays I have no idea where I would draw the line. What I have worked out is certainly an advancement to what is currently known to the poker world. I do also highlight many mistakes in common knowledge. But the main thing that I have done is find the unifying logic that connects all poker theory.

You seem to be failing to grasp the sheer audacity of this claim... I believe that while mapping out the way to think though a poker decision, I accidentally mapped out the way we make all our strategic decisions. In our profession we play a mind game. And I just mapped out the mind for our game. In doing so, I have accidentally outlined the boundaries surrounding all comprehendable strategies.

You could say that what I have done is map out exactly how to use the Levels of thought. And you know, after all these years, I do actually think that was the wrong name to give these things. I think they should have been called, "The Levels of the Mind".

We have never said your 'theory' is incorrect because quite frankly you've never really shared any of it online so there's nothing to discuss. What we have pointed out is that you are wrong about game theory and it's application to poker. You are also wrong about players who understand and apply game theory and their understanding of exploiting opponents.

I don't know if you're referring to this thread or some other thread with a question but it doesn't really matter. Let me ask you this. Can you find the next number in this sequence:

1,5,4,7,3,9,?

If you can't does that mean I'm smarter than you and you should pay me money to teach you? It's exactly like your question games. It's a thinly veiled attempt to seem like your the one holding all of the (metaphorical) cards.

I told you you wouldn't understand what I was saying. I said the use of the world levels is an arbitrary decision. You have arbitrarily chosen to divide what you think is useful information into groups you call levels. They could be called anything but the point is it's an unnecessary step that causes confusion for people.

You can define the levels to me without calling them levels. You have done it on multiple occasions. So why even bother categorizing things by levels? It doesn't aide in understanding and in fact confuses people when you talk about them without defining them.

Again levels is an arbitrary term, but the ideas they express are old and out dated. That's why theory has moved on and your interpretation is irrelevant and even more confusing since we have moved on to better ways of reasoning about poker.

Here is another odd thing you do. You cause confusion in threads and then claim people don't get it so that is why you have to swoop in and make it easier to understand. I have told you many times people already know what you're talking about. You seem to think the community at large doesn't understand the most basic parts of poker.

Great so prove it? Bring your theory online and let the community evaluate it. That's the true test of work not your own boasting and grandiose claims. If you don't want to do it for free that's fine publish it. If it's worth as much as you say than sales will speak for themselves.

I don't even know what this means. How is poker theory disjointed and in need of unification? Is this formula analytical? Is it just an algorithm? How many bb/100 can it win vs other AI? How exploitable is it in bb/100? Has it played against top pros? There are agreed upon ways that strategies are evaluated so if you choose not to use any of those ways then don't be surprised when no one takes you seriously.

No I pretty much comprehend the audacity of this claim and the one that follows.

Great. I'm sure game theorists, psychologists, and economists everywhere are ready to peer review your work when you're ready to release it and when you are published in an academic journal please post the link here for all to see and feel free to gloat.



Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

Theres no point in me answering all those things, I'd just be repeating myself. I've been explaining this stuff to you personally for years now, and your obviously completely incapable of comprehending it.

Or you are a terrible teacher (see I can use an ad hominen too!). Could be either. Plus some of what I said isn't related to your teachings so you don't have to re-explain anything.

Like I said feel free to have your strategy evaluated by what the community agrees is a valid method to evaluate things. If it's successful then feel free to gloat and rub it in my face. Until then expect me to disagree with you on the topics we have discussed.

I know how I use that word. I've even told you how I use that word (the legal actions available at a decision point e.g bet or check). I would also extend that to multiple points e.g. check/raise, 3-bet/fold.

Now here's the thing: I'm not saying my way of using that word is the only way to use it. I'm saying that you are clearly using a different meaning, quite probably one I won't object to. I'm only trying to get you to tell me what you mean. It wasn't a trap.

If you've written a book explaining concepts and you can't do simple terminology for us then it's going to be a terrible book.

I'm not using a different meaning of the word, manoeuvre... That is ridiculous. Yes, checking and betting are moves. But so is bluffing. These are all manoeuvres. In my question I asked what type of move it is that you make using the fourth Level of thought. Pretty straight forward question squire...

So how come it's easy for me to give a definition for what I mean and so hard for you to do it for what you mean?

It's because I'm not being intentionally obtuse in order to sound like a book I just wrote is full of esoteric wonder.

Except no one knows what the fourth level of thought is so the question would be even simpler if you avoided using that terminology.

Also he pointed out that his meaning of the word move and your meaning of the word move appear to be different. His meaning was a precise definition of strategic actions (bet, fold, raise, call) while yours was a generalization of those topics (bluff, value bet, rebluff, etc).



Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk

I assure you, most people understand what a move is and my simple logic is easy enough for them to understand too... The reason so many of you are struggling is because of cognitive dissonance...

Really? Now your saying no-one knows what the fouth level of thought is?? I did put up a link...

In my original post I'm pretty sure I did say the TYPE of move. Not that it really matters...

You're being asked to define your terms.

You've apparently written a book on poker theory. It's kind of ridiculous, though at this point not unbelievable, to imagine you've done that without ever fleshing out working definitions for your terminology.

Again, this isn't a trap. You can be using whatever concepts of "levels" or "moves" you want. The point isn't for me to nit up on definitions. Normally what happens is one is offered and then the conversation moves forward. You're on level zero when it comes to conversations.