Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

I feel this needs to be added in some way.

Deception lowers your EV for that hand, but in the big picture increases your EV for subsequent hands with that opponent.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

It doesn't necessarily lower your EV for the hand. You could check the turn which decreases your EV for that street while gaining it back plus some on the river.

I like the posters definition.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

Modified Definition?

Deception in poker is the art of playing a hand, part of a hand, or several hands in a manner that does not maximize EV in order to provide false information to your opponent. This false information increases your opponent(s) likelihood of misplaying their hand(s). Effective deception enables you to gain more EV through the subsequent mistakes of your opponents than you lost by making the deceptive play(s).

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

Brick,

I think you are doing the same thing I tried to do in my definition, i.e., cover all the bases in the definition. I do not feel, however, that it is an important element of the definition.
If you look at my thread of 10/12/05 @ 3:54 am., I give the definition of accounting, which is straight from an college accounting text book.
It does not refer to amoritization, depreciation, cash flow, balance or cash flow statements, nor is there any reference to tax consequences. It basically "caspsulizes" the enormous task involved in accomplishing the required acccounting for a corporation.

I think we need to make the definition shorter, not longer.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
Definition: Deception in poker, is the art of playing your hand in a manner which is contrary to that which maximizes your +EV, which in theory, increases your opponent(s) chances of misplaying their hand and returning your lost EV from the deceptive play and earning you additional +EV through the subsequent mistakes of your opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

I voted for "worthless," and while it's not worthless, it belies a beginner's approach to poker.

If you slowplay all your big hands, after a given amount of time astute players will grasp onto this and stop betting into you. Conversely, if you always play trash hands fast, your opponents will again pick up on this and raise you when your fast-play.

Furthermore, when you play deceptively, sometimes playing your big hands fast can be deceptive to your opponent if you've played big hands slow and small hands fast because your opponent can't know whether you have a huge hand or two rags. Furthermore, if you've played tight thus far and you bet a weak hand expecting to win, you've deceived your opponent.

In summation, your definition is too specific. Your definition shows static thinking, which is good for low-limits but fails in higher limits. I'd suggest the following definition:

Deception: In poker, the act of playing hands in a random manner that your opponent's expectation of your hand value are different from you acual hand value and your opponent misplays his hand. [/definition]

This means sometimes slowplaying big hands, sometimes fastplaying big hands; similarly, it means sometimes check-folding weak hands and sometimes betting/check-raising weak hands.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

Sorry couldn't resist.

Deception: Following an apparently suboptimal strategy with the aim of elliciting, and profiting from, even less optimal play from your opponent(s).

You may get a more accurate definition, but if you can get a more general one I'll be impressed...

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

That's good

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
Deception: Following an apparently suboptimal strategy with the aim of elliciting, and profiting from, even less optimal play from your opponent(s).

[/ QUOTE ]

This is good. It falls in line with the general definition that Sklansky gives for semi-bluffing:

A bet with a hand which, if called, does not figure to be the best hand at the moment, but has a reasonable chance of outdrawing those hands that initially called it.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
I voted for "worthless," and while it's not worthless, it belies a beginner's approach to poker.

If you slowplay all your big hands, after a given amount of time astute players will grasp onto this and stop betting into you.

[/ QUOTE ]

The definition does not imply that you constantly employ deceptive play.

[ QUOTE ]
Conversely, if you always play trash hands fast, your opponents will again pick up on this and raise you when your fast-play.

Furthermore, when you play deceptively, sometimes playing your big hands fast can be deceptive to your opponent if you've played big hands slow and small hands fast because your opponent can't know whether you have a huge hand or two rags. Furthermore, if you've played tight thus far and you bet a weak hand expecting to win, you've deceived your opponent.

In summation, your definition is too specific. Your definition shows static thinking, which is good for low-limits but fails in higher limits.

[/ QUOTE ]

"definitions" are static. I do not believe you can find a definition of many, if any, words in the dictionary that are not static.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd suggest the following definition:

Deception: In poker, the act of playing hands in a random manner that your opponent's expectation of your hand value are different from you acual hand value and your opponent misplays his hand. [/definition]

[/ QUOTE ]

This is good, however, it would need to be re-worded somewhat, as you are not playing your hand in a "random manner," you are playing your hand deceptively for a specific purpose.


[ QUOTE ]
This means sometimes slowplaying big hands, sometimes fastplaying big hands; similarly, it means sometimes check-folding weak hands and sometimes betting/check-raising weak hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

The above is straight out of Ciaffone/Brier, Middle Limit Poker.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

Deception in poker: Denying your opponents useful information about your holding.

Notably:
The basic deception play in poker is the bluff, and it turns out that (game theoretical) correct play dictates that bluffs get folded to by stronger hands fairily frequently.

Moreover, sophisticated bluffing -- and, for that matter any correctly applied deceptive tactic -- will be neutral or +EV.

It's also not at all the case that deceptive play is necessarily random. For example, it's possible (and even concievably sensible) for someone to consistently play 2c 3h 4h 5h 7h the same as a royal flush in straight 5-card poker.