I'm a regular poster on the Poker Theory theory threads and about half a decade ago I posted what I called "The Perfect Thought Process". I had basically found the order that we should consider all the defining factors when making a Poker decision. It seemed clear that I was the first to find this 'order' and so I set out to create what I thought would be the greatest poker guide of all time, a book that taught all the factors involved in poker decision in the correct order. At that time I was making around £50 an hr playing Poker, I thought this book would only take a few months to complete and so I ducked away from the tables and concentrated all my efforts on it... It took me nearly four years. Finding that order was just the beginning. It was the first piece of the puzzle. And now I cant believe what I've discovered.

By mapping out exactly how to think through a Poker decision I think that I've accidentally mapped out the way that we make all decisions. Not only we humans. I think I found the guidelines surrounding all strategies.

I've done a little research into game theory as a whole. Things like decision theory and strategic theory seem very similar and I think I could have found logic which might advance our understanding of all these things. But I'm in no way trained in any of these things. I'm just a poker player. After mapping out the way to make poker decisions I just realised how the method can be adapted so that it can apply to any other 'game'. I know very little of economics and such, and so I was hoping to discuss this with some people who are more versed in these things.

I really dont know where to start as I know almost nothing about these subjects. When I research them using google I always see huge factors that are missing from almost every strategic method that I find. Perhaps one of you can put up a good link which explains to a untrained person a common overview of a decision theory method and then I can explain what is missing? Or maybe you would like to learn about this minds formula...

The most basic overview I can give is this - It all works in Levels.

Level One - Is all about ourselves. Using the rules and the goals in the game were able to find our relative physical self within that game. Our relative physical self is actually defined by our potential for manouvreability in the game. So, things like our bank balance is part of our physical self when we run a business, and buying stock is a potential manouvre.

At Level Two we start to learn when to make these potential manoeuvres.

Level Two - Is all about our perception of the 'opponent', or ally, or any object even. We assign the rules and goals to the other 'players' and consider their attributes and their manouvres. At this Level we learn to counter our opponents 'plays'. We learn how to defend.

Level Three - We consider the opponents perception of us and how they might react to our manoeuvres. At this Level we're able to consider how the opponents perception of us will change based on our actions. We're able to consider how they will react to our plays. Which enables us to attack.

Those are the three main Levels, Level Four, Five and Infinity are also relevent. You may have heard of John Nash, well he basically cracked Level Infinity.

These Levels are actually very simple, but because we're talking about the secret workings of the mind it can be strangely difficult to comprehend. It appears that Cognitive Dissonance is suffered by anybody who attempts to approach any higher level than that which they are currently aware of for any 'game'. I have found the reason this happens, I found the conflicting knowledge comes from the trust in specific strategies and plays. You see, each Level gives us the reason for the Level before it. The real reasons for all our strategies exist in the Levels and so if we blindly trust in any strategy without understanding exactly how it works we will be effectively blocking ourselves from recognising this formula. So please do expect to see the effects of cognitive dissonance in the responses to this post. Everyone's mind tries to reject this stuff.

Any consideration above your thinking/modelling/abstracting capacity is as magic and usually seems like nonsense.

What's your core thesis here? That cognitive dissonance is triggered when we discover parts of higher level thinking that contradict our current level of thinking? I would posit it's more the contradiction than the higher level thinking, causing the dissonance.

Knowledge and habit blocks discovery, and derivation from first principles. I'd agree with that. I often say that the number of people actually thinking at the "coal face of reality" is very small on any given subject. Most are battling with make believe models some distance away. It's cognitively easier, more instantly rewarding, and also more aligned with social pressures and meeting needs, which is what most people are driven by.

Still, I'm not sure what your core thesis is here. I get that it's a crystal clear insight in your own mind, but is there any way you can get it up to a cogency even a fraction of say, the original text of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs? If you're going to theorize about human behavior and be taken seriously, you're going to need either mathematics or a clearer and more meandering way of expressing yourself. Meandering in the sense of wandering through objections, other models, contrary ideas, ideas for further exploration.

Right now it reads like a fat pile of nothing. A clear note in your own head, but not really elucidated.

Yeah yeah its the contradiction with the higher Level of thinking that causes the dissonance, I just pinpointed the exact part of the strategic process that conflicts.

It seems like you want to see the entire method. I have only given a very rough overview of these Levels in this thread, in the book I do describe them all and exactly how they work in Poker. I have the complete calculation in there but it is way too big to put in one post on here.

The core thesis is hard to miss surely??... I have found one method which contains all strategic possibilities. All strategy follows this same general formula. By using it I was able to read Sun Tzu's "Art of War" and instantly see how we would obliterate him. This isn't just the way I think through problems. I can see this everywhere, in everyone and everything. Understanding this formula has also enabled me to see roughly how the mind develops from being a rock to a self aware human. I can see the benefits of each major advancement in the mind and what each enables the being to do - I hear that empathy has evolved twice, in completely different types of creature, well I can see why. I can see that we need empathy for Level Three. I see that we need awareness for Level Two. I see that self awareness comes at Level Three. I've mapped out the minds calculative process!

Usually we humans do all the calculations subconsciously, but when a 'player' starts memorising plays they struggle to consciously approach the higher levels than that which that are consciously aware. So, I can teach a beginner in less than an hour exactly how all these Levels work in Poker. I can teach them to play at a skill level that the poker world deems almost impossible. This is clearly important to Poker, and so I expect it will be important in other fields too??

I will have a little read through that text and let you know how this compares.

Such a thing is not possible except in abstract worlds that don't apply to reality. Case in point:

All hail Yadoula8, king of the world? How about a little test? Let's see if your "strategy" allows you to win against some random clown (me) on an Internet forum.

Like this guy?


What I think you'll find is that you've done this:
It's not uncommon among 115 IQs, it's quite uncommon among 150 IQs.

I've met plenty of cucks with shining eyes who think they've found the secret to life that applies to everything. They usually end up frustrated and broke and unhappily jerking off alone when it's all done.

You described in the OP what I consider to be "leveling" as it is used on this forum and similarly in other places.

I think you may want to look at the definition of "winging it" before you think you have invented some new form of chaos theory or something in the future.

This theory sounds like an LSD epiphany.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

And now?

You are right regarding poker, chess and Go. I find though that in backgammon I gain little even when I find my relative physical self. Am I doing something wrong?

Can you tell us more about level 4, 5, and infinity? Don't just solve half the puzzle here.

My LSD epiphanies are usually super local (usually something useful for my own life) and very very clear cut. This sounds like smartest guy in the room syndrome.

I do agree that if you pinpoint the level you need +1 to outmaneuver them usually. (if they are exploitable). It's also nice to see on what level ppl play: thinking about themselves, thinking about you, thinking about you + the context...

Don't known how this all relates to game theory? That is game theory is a "stronger" assertion of truth then your theory is, by definition.

on a side note I play level 1 so to counter level 3 players ....

lol, wp

on a side note, people that are successful (lets remove luck) are usually good at 1-3 things and bad at 10000 others. Simply due to competitive nature of the market.

And yea, a lot wind up rich and frustrated and unhappily jerking off alone when it's all done (the divorce that is...)

Is this a true statement? It's probably true for some career paths. Most of the high end people I know are skilled in many things and naturally generally bright. Hard to get anywhere without a talent stack.

If you're rich and alone, you're doing life wrong in a big way. So many gold digging whores out there.

Starting at 5:52.

It's not entirely correct - a million dollars is worth about 4 ugly points and 15 years in the dating world, but it's not far off.

from my own experience most that I know are good (+EV) at 1-2, marginally good at 3-6, unexploitable at 5-10, and **** (aka average with usual sd() deviation) at everything else....

Of-course we could argue what we mean by this... (skill definition) But their true EV comes from top few skills, all others are there just to supplement. I am ofcourse open to counter examples but would argue in advance to not use heavy outliers*


I would argue this is the alone part (at least )

* maybe success is an outlier at 99% confidence :P

Cliffs from the Hot-Crazy Matrix Video

"Crazy axis ranges girls from 4-10 since there's no such thing as a woman less than a 4" LOL

"Fun zone: girls from 5-8 in hotness"

"Danger zone: hairdressers, redheads, girl's name Tiffany"


LOl this is pretty funny but wayyyy off topic. perhaps there should be a new GTO dating thread?

OP seems to have vanished - perhaps he's busy taking over the world - so I think we should make this the low content thread. Every other forum has one. That way OP gets bumped for eternity.

Tactically explaining life...

Wahay, my fellow Englishman the poker legend David Sklansky! I've been looking forward to speaking with you for a long time.

So you dont get Level One eh. I did actually notice that already bruv, but don't feel bad, this is the hardest Level to get your head around. Even I dont fully understand this one but then who could? Who could truely understand themselves.

At Level One in backgammon we have our bankroll, our counters, our dice, shared things like the board and that multiplier dice. All the physical things that we can use to help us reach our goal. And so Sklansky, if you only recently found these things, I think you'll find that infact your ability to play backgammon will have vastly improved.

Your question sounds like a lot like crazy nonsense mate, it sounds like an attempt to discredit my logic, and I have remarked in the past that you do seem to be avoiding me - You're blatantly suffering from cognitive dissonance. And, as is usually the case, you seem to have pointed us to the exact logic which your mind is rejecting.

Level One is different to the others. All the other Levels exist only to exhance the Levels before them but Level One comes first. And so all the higher levels exist only to help us understand Level One. If you want to understand Level One perfectly, you would also have to understand all the other levels perfectly. Level One is the all important Level. It's the first Level we need to learn and it's the last level we need to consider anytime we make any decision. No matter what game we're playing, in the end, we choose what to do with ourselves.

Did that answer your query?? I don't suppose you fancy doing something for me now, a gift for my kids, I just need you to say these exact words; "Yadi should be King!".

Thread is the nut low. OP title should read, "I think I accidentally read a book on game theory???"

Ban OP?

Its been a week Sklansky... Come on!

Using Poker theory I'm pretty sure that I have (pretty much) solved how it is that we make decisions. Decisions in Poker is your thing. Thats why your an administrator at this site. Because your supposed to be the one who knows how this stuff is done.

I shouldnt be defending myself against childish attempts to discredit my logic. We should be having an adult conversation. But if you do decide to mock me, and then I cleverly defend myself, you shouldn't just duck away from the conversation!! If your going to bow down then do it like a gent! I fully understood what you were really getting at there, right? I pre-empted your real meaning leaving you nothing to say. Who the hell can do that to the great sklansky when talking about Poker theory!!?? Only someone who understands it better than you do. Thats who.

Come on... Most the people on this forum would love to hear you tear my logic to pieces. I've gotten almost nothing but abuse for years on this site, I have hundreds of people who despise my every word, you can see them posting here, trying desperately to get rid of me. Even your moderators regularly show their contempt. For one reason and one reason alone I am still here, because I understand poker theory better than everyone else. Nobody can argue against me because i'm the best.

I'm sure you realise that you have a lot to lose, I am saying that your understanding of Poker is fundimentally wrong, and so that will be one of the main reasons why you aren't messaging me. But the truth is that you've already lost. Its just that nobody's noticed yet. It will be my book that is used as reference in Wikipedia. It will be name at the bottom of the page. I will be recognised as the worlds most advanced poker theorist. And I'm actually sat here offering to teach you exactly that which you dont yet understand. Your best move is not to fold here. It's to play. You could be my aristotle, or you could be nothing more than all those other players. Just another person who could not get past their cognitive dissonance.

At Level One, we dont just find our cards, we find everything that belongs to us. If you're able to understand that then you should be able to see how these Levels of Thought can be used to strategise in general?

OP you should first educate yourself on the difference between Game Theory and Decision Theory. You have them totally confused. And during your education process you may just find that they have been well understood for a long time.

I suspect trolling anyway.

I think he's on to something. I understand he has also already solved poker. He has a book coming out.

I've mapped out how we think through poker decisions. There is one little bit I don't fully understand but I have pretty much done it. In my book I only explain how to make one single decision, and so I definitely don't claim to have solved the game... I have advanced our understanding of the game a great deal. I've found fundamental errors in the way we understood the game.

I don't know anything about decision theory, I did say that's why I'm here...

Isn't there anyone rational reading this?... Think about it... Sklansky is one of the worlds leading poker theorists, the title page on his most famous book reads "Learn how to think like a pro", this is the one man who could tear my logic apart, if, I was talking nonsense. I have just spent three years rewriting his famous theory book. He is fully aware that I plan to replace his book. And yet, he is not silencing me. I am trying real hard to discuss my logic with him on the eve of my books release, but he has avoided me for three years.

Surely that must seem a little curious... If it does, help me get Sklansky to man up and talk about this stuff. Look at the claim I am making. This is bigger than me and him. Get him to prove me right or wrong for the good of all decision makers out there!!

I see many of you have written this off due to the audacious claim, but which part of it is really unbelievable - Do you think it's unlikely that we all already know, on an unconscious level, the method we all use to think through all our decisions? Maybe you think it's unlikely that our minds strategic method could be used to calculate all comprehendible strategies? Perhaps you don't think that we all strategize in the same way?

I have cracked it ladies and gents, just about. It will be recognised someday, and if I don't get any help on this page I will just go elsewhere. I only wrote this thread on a whim. I would prefer to discuss this with people who were miles away from Poker so that cognitive dissonance would be as small a problem as possible.

^Is getting poker-book-level famous worth having to deal with the fringes of society, David?