Theory of Deception; A poll
 

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.

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 ]

One of the problems with this definition is that is circularly references itself. If you are playing deceptively in order to maximize EV, and the definition of deception is playing in a manner that reduces EV, then you are at odds with yourself. Separating "EV without deception utilized" from "EV with deception utilized" would help here, but it would also make the definition wordier.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

I don't see how this isn't exact and complete?

It might not be a good strategy at SS, but it's the correct definition of deception.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

Go pens.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

You have 3 completes and one worthless. I would say it is somewhere in between, but since that wasn't an option, I chose worthless.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

deception

n 1: a misleading falsehood

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've never seen a definition in a poker book. Maybe I have and just don't remember. So, after reading a book that a chapter on deception, which was 7 pages long, I decided to give it a shot.

My foundation was based upon the definition I learned for accounting while in college:

Accounting is the art of classifying, recording and summarizing transactions and events, which are at least in part of a financial nature and interpreting the results thereof.

That is a lot shorter than mine, and it takes 4 years of college to fully understand accounting, as well as a CPA test, that many say is harder to pass than the BAR Exam, to be a fully accredited accountant.

I thought what I came up with was o.k. The definition, by itself does not explain deception, that would take pages, however, for those of us who know what it is and understand how we can maximize its use, as well as misplay it, I thought the definition pretty much said it all in a nutshell.

Oh well, the exercise was fun.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

How about,

Deception in poker is any action that increases your opponents' chances of losing Sklansky bucks.

More seriously, maybe it would be easier to define by linking it more directly to the Fundamental Theory of Poker.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've never seen a definition in a poker book. Maybe I have and just don't remember. So, after reading a book that a chapter on deception, which was 7 pages long, I decided to give it a shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Middle Limit Holdem?

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

correct..........good stuff

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.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

I do not believe that deception can be employed successfully at random. There must be an intelligent thought process prior to employing the play. In general, that means that you do not employ deception when the risk is too great. Also, a little deception goes a long way. You don't bluff into a bluffer, generally speaking.
If 5 people limp in and you raise on the button with 65s, that is a much lower risk, than open/raising UTG with 65s, at a tight table, where you will most likely not steal the blinds and end up with no more than 2-3 opponents.
Limping with AA UTG, when your raises are getting too much respect in a tight game is a good deceptive play. Calling on the button with AA after 3 players have limped in, is not. However, that would be a "randomly chosen" deceptive play.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 Holdem.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

And to everyone who hasn't read this book: the first few chapters contain clear descriptions of some very basic concepts that cannot be compared to any other book I've ever read (I don't have the book on me so I can't list the titles of these chapters right now). One of these chaters is Deception, and it is definately contains the best information I've ever read on this topic. I suggest it to everyone.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

I 2nd that Motion

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

Deception: An attempt to disguise the value you place upon your hand.

Anything else you add can be refuted by specific example.

It doesn't have to be EV. It doesn't have to be random. It certainly doesn't have to be "an art". It doesn't have to work. It doesn't even have to have a purpose.

Using my definition, you can then make statements like "Deception is critical to beating the rake at high-limit games" or "Deception was useless against the fish at my table, I just played ABC poker."

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh?? If I have AA but convince my opponent that I'm on a wild bluff with trash, so that he incorrectly calls instead of folding, then how exactly have I lowered my EV for that hand? Is that not deception?

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

[ QUOTE ]
Deception: An attempt to disguise the value you place upon your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very good definition, however, I think it is just a little to vague.

[ QUOTE ]
Anything else you add can be refuted by specific example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you dispute the following with a specific example?:

Deception: The art of disguising the true value of your hand, in an attempt to lead your opponent(s) into misplaying their hand.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't have to be EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are not making a deceptive move for the purpose of increasing your +EV, why are you?

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't have to be random.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that making a deceptive move at random, with no rational intention, is a -EV proposition.

[ QUOTE ]
It certainly doesn't have to be "an art".

[/ QUOTE ]

Not unless you believe that playing your hand deceptively, in a foolish manner, has future +EV. The only example I can think of right now, would be where 4 people limp, you're on the button with AA and limp; call it down to the river and show your hand. This of course, being early upon your arrival at the game, against players you don't know. Now you have portrayed yourself as a fish, and, you have still made the deceptive play with a specific purpose.

Now, if you had no time to size up your opponents, and failed to realize that due to level of skill of your opponents, that it would have no effect on how they played against you, well, that would be a "random" play of deception, as there was no intelligent thought behind it, and it would have no +EV value.

I cannot believe that the statement cannot be disputed:

The purpose of playing your hand deceptively is to increase your +EV, either immediately, or, at some point in the future against the opponents you are currently facing.

I cannot think of a deceptive play, chosen totally at random, without any thought, that is a good one.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't have to work. It doesn't even have to have a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Can you give us an example?

[ QUOTE ]
Using my definition, you can then make statements like "Deception is critical to beating the rake at high-limit games"

[/ QUOTE ]

An example of deception with a purpose.

[ QUOTE ]
or "Deception was useless against the fish at my table, I just played ABC poker."

[/ QUOTE ]

An intelligent thought process.

I am enjoying this discussion, and please do not take my comments as an "attack" upon your position, but instead, just my opinion, looking for an intelligent debate on the subject.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

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?

Doc

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

Good thought.

My first thoughts are that any definition of deception must take into account at least two things: the effect over <font color="blue">time</font> of the action and it's effect in application of the <font color="blue">fundamental theorem</font>.

Quickie proposal (without sufficient thought):

Deception is any action in violation of the fundamental theorem of poker that has a +ev result due to a subsequent violation of the fundamental theorem of poker by the opponent caused by the disinformation presented by the original action or non-action.

That can probably be improved on, but I think it's pretty close.

Doc

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

I like it.......howz this for an improvement?

Deception: Any action in violation of the fundamental theorem of poker, that has a +ev result due to a subsequent violation of the fundamental theorem of poker by the opponent, stemming from the disinformation presented by the original action or non-action.

Re: Theory of Deception; A poll
 

I like it.

One of the things that some others in the thread are not taking into account in trying to define this is that they try to include all ATTEMPTED deceptions. Not necessary. Inclusion of attempted deception that didn't deceive anyone is not necessary because it is not a deception.

Also, it is not necessary to assume that you won the hand due to the deception. If the opponent misplays the hand as a result of the disinformation but still draws out on you, the deception remains +ev. You still get SklanskyBucks for the deception.

Therefore I think the definition you and I are proposing is not only correct but complete.

Doc

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.