Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

I couldn't agree with you more. What I like about your definition, is that it is saying exactly what I said in my original definition, however, it is less wordy and you are using "the fundemental theorem of poker" which makes me jealous [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

When trying to pin down a definition, it is useful to differentiate the phenomenon you are defining from its nearest conceptual neighbors by asking the question "as opposed to what?"

So, "deception"...as opposed to what?

The first thing that pops into my mind is "ABC Poker". What is "ABC Poker"? It is taking actions with your hand that are warranted by its value. Raising with AA, check-folding a busted draw, etc. Deception isn't like that. Deception, in the context of poker, is playing your hand in a way that misrepresents its value--indicating a value that is either higher or lower than it actually has. E.g. limping with AA or Raising the river with a busted draw. What is the purpose in poker of deception? To induce your opponent to play poorly, i.e. FT mistakes.

So a reasonable first shot at a definition of "deception" might be something like: "Deception, in poker, is any act intended to misrepresent the strength of one's hand, with the intention that one's opponent(s) plays his hand poorly as result."

It captures the nature of the act and its strategic intention and I don't think it has to be more sophisticated than that, e.g. with mentions of EV or of the FToP or anything like that.

Now of course you can ask "Well isn't 'playing his hand poorly' really all about EV and FToP?" Yes, it is. But a good definition is concise. And you could write an encyclopedia about every word of any defintion, but that doesn't mean all the information needs to be expressed by it, only implied. The unpacking of a defintion doesn't occur *within* it.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
You lowered your ev for that play by not betting out, but slowplaying instead, thereby not getting as much money on the table as you theoretically could have. The effect of the deception may be to get the opponent to make a bet or raise violating the fundamental theorem, whereas he may have folded to your bet, but the theoretical maximum ev for the hand (barring the use of deception) was to bet it. capice?

[/ QUOTE ]
Non capito. Who says I slowplayed? In my hypothetical scenario, I was betting AA the whole way but suggesting by my mannerisms or table talk that I was bluffing. Again, is this not deception? Where is the EV loss?

The point is that I think the OP has too narrow a view of deception if he thinks that it always reduces short term EV.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
Deception, in the context of poker, is playing your hand in a way that misrepresents its value.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the definition. I don't think it is necessary to include one's intentions in the definition.

Typically, a deceptive maneouver is -EV. A possible reason to make this -EV play is to gain back the value at any point after the deceptive play. However, many players overuse deception or use it improperly and don't get the intended result. Also, some players perform deceptive plays for ego.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

Well, I won't go into detail on every point, but I can state with 100% confidence that there are players who use deception (as I define it) for no discernible purpose whatsoever.

I would expect such an approach to be -EV, and would not call such an approach an "art".

I think we are essentially agreeing, I just prefer not to assume a player who uses deception knows what he is doing or why.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I won't go into detail on every point, but I can state with 100% confidence that there are players who use deception (as I define it) for no discernible purpose whatsoever.

I would expect such an approach to be -EV, and would not call such an approach an "art".

I think we are essentially agreeing, I just prefer not to assume a player who uses deception knows what he is doing or why.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not describe the above play as "deceptive" but rather "foolhardy."

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well, I won't go into detail on every point, but I can state with 100% confidence that there are players who use deception (as I define it) for no discernible purpose whatsoever.

I would expect such an approach to be -EV, and would not call such an approach an "art".

I think we are essentially agreeing, I just prefer not to assume a player who uses deception knows what he is doing or why.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would not describe the above play as "deceptive" but rather "foolhardy."

[/ QUOTE ]

My point is that the two are not mutually exclusive. Of course, you can choose whatever definition you prefer.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Deception, in the context of poker, is playing your hand in a way that misrepresents its value.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is the definition. I don't think it is necessary to include one's intentions in the definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. My counter-example: Imagine a timid player who, maybe because he is playing above his head or some other reason, congenitally refuses to raise any hand other than AA, because "pocket Aces could be around any corner".

So he'll be limping with KK-JJ and AKs at EVERY opportunity. The proper way, other things being equal, to play KK etc. is to raise an unraised pot. He is limping because he is afraid to lose. In this case, yes, he is not playing a hand according to its value. What he is doing, however, is playing poorly, NOT utilizing deception.

Therefore, I conclude, the strategic intention of deception is properly included in its definition, so as to distinguish it from mere poor play.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
My counter-example: Imagine a timid player who, maybe because he is playing above his head or some other reason, congenitally refuses to raise any hand other than AA, because "pocket Aces could be around any corner".

So he'll be limping with KK-JJ and AKs at EVERY opportunity. The proper way, other things being equal, to play KK etc. is to raise an unraised pot. He is limping because he is afraid to lose. In this case, yes, he is not playing a hand according to its value. What he is doing, however, is playing poorly, NOT utilizing deception.

Therefore, I conclude, the strategic intention of deception is properly included in its definition, so as to distinguish it from mere poor play.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't have to deliberately misrepresent your hand's value in order for its value to be misrepresented. Although rare, certain game conditions *could* make limping with KK a good play (very tight game where BB will bet every street but fold to any bet/raise). I don't think that poor play and deception are mutually exclusive (ie only one can be true at a time). In your example, both would be true.

Think about all those fish that you've seen limp preflop with KK vs your AJ that you never would have raised otherwise, then you catch your A and they call down. You would never have put them on KK, as their actions deceived you.

I believe deception is a result, not a reason.

Often times, players intend to cause deception but fail to do so.

I also believe that discussion of deception on these boards is geared towards the strategic implications thereof, so perhaps the inclusion of intentions would be wise in this case. I do think that the intent to deceive and the result of being deceived are independent from each other.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

Your definition is not worthless, but not complete IMO.

Sometimes playing your hand in the most straightforward manner is the most deceptive...depending on the game/opponents/table texture. Not necessarily -EV.