riverboatking post re: 2nd/3rd level thinking
 

So I don't post on this forum because, well, I'm not a high stakes NL player, so I don't think my viewpoint is particularly pertinent/valuable. Not to mention that I'm primarily an SNG player. However, I do like to lurk here, because I like to look at big numbers.

Anyway, I wanted to comment about this post by riverboatking in a recent thread by etizzle about a 2k PLHE situation (the content of the thread isn't really important here):

[ QUOTE ]
ok so everyone seems really concerned with what villian has, but no one is asking the equally important question:
what do you think villian puts you on?
the answer to this question will make your situation much more clearly defined.

so, how have you been playing, what is your table image...what does your raise here signify to the other players.

obviously if you have been playing fast then it is almost impossible to fold...however if you've been playing fairly straightfoward its a much easier fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now, if I'm correct in my "poker terminology," we refer to 1st level thinking as "what we have," 2nd level thinking as "what the opponent has," and 3rd level thinking as "what the opponent thinks we have." So riverboatking is saying that we needed to think about that hand using "3rd level thinking." I "use quotes" a lot.

I guess I have a problem with the order that this thinking goes on. In my opinion, 3rd level thinking should come before 2nd level -- that is to say, our 2nd level thinking can't be properly shaped without thinking on the 3rd level. We can't accurately figure out what our opponents have unless we can figure out what they put us on (unless we are assuming the opponent is not a thinking player who doesn't care to put us on anything at all).

It may be that this idea has been discussed before and dismissed. And I certainly don't think it's any groundbreaking new idea. I'm just thinking that the whole progression between 2nd and 3rd level thinking may be flawed, since we can't really effectively get through the 2nd level thought process without getting through the 3rd level. So maybe it should go: 1) What do we have; 2) What do our opponents think we have; 3) What do our opponents have.

I dunno, hopefully this prompts some thoughtful posts. Maybe it's obvious.


ps - if its poor etiquette to attribute this to riverboatking, lemme know, and i'll make it anonymous.

Re: riverboatking post re: 2nd/3rd level thinking
 

i think he just makes up a lot of sht to sound smart.

Re: riverboatking post re: 2nd/3rd level thinking
 

If you're playing in a game where everyone is thinking at the first level, then it is impossible to think about what your opponents think you have. However, you'll get a huge edge by thinking about what your opponents have. Therefore, that is the second level.

Re: riverboatking post re: 2nd/3rd level thinking
 

I can attest to this after meeting him. Can't believe he isn't broke yet.

Re: riverboatking post re: 2nd/3rd level thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
i think he just makes up a lot of sht to sound smart.

[/ QUOTE ]

dude, why you got to blow up my game?

Re: riverboatking post re: 2nd/3rd level thinking
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can attest to this after meeting him. Can't believe he isn't broke yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

believe me i'm working on it.

Re: riverboatking post re: 2nd/3rd level thinking
 

I don't think many people actually think about it linearly, especially in the heat of the moment when there's only 15 seconds to act. Everything just comes out as one, and it's not like looking at a checklist of things to think about, it's like everything it automatic and intuitive and whatever is most important jumps out at you (for instance if you are inducing a bluff by slowplaying the thing that jumps out at you is he thinks you have garbage, but if you bet pot and he raises allin you are instantly think about what he has and what he thinks you have. I dunno I probably explained it poorly but hopefully you get the gist of this?

Re: riverboatking post re: 2nd/3rd level thinking
 

yeah, not the best explanation, but I understand what you are saying and completely agree with you.

Re: riverboatking post re: 2nd/3rd level thinking
 

I think the 2 levels of thinking i use mostly are 1st and 2nd level...

I seldom use 3rd level thinking except the times i am trying to slowplay, or be deceptful to my opponent (due to extreme strength of my hand, i would use 3rd level thinking to help me develope a strategy to convince my opponent i was weak) OR OR when i am running a complete bluff, i would use 3rd level thinking to conivnce him in stronger than i am...

Other than those very seldom circumstances, i think level 1 and 2 are used the most with me... I would say i use 3rd level thinking only around 5-10% of the time

Re: riverboatking post re: 2nd/3rd level thinking
 

Hi mlagoo,

[ QUOTE ]
Now, if I'm correct in my "poker terminology," we refer to 1st level thinking as "what we have," 2nd level thinking as "what the opponent has," and 3rd level thinking as "what the opponent thinks we have."

[/ QUOTE ]

You are incorrect in your terminology. 1st is "what does our opponent have?", 2nd is "what does our opponent think we have?", 3rd is "What does our opponent think we think he has?" I had to say that last one over and over until I understood what it meant; most people get it wrong, and very, very few of us bother to think on that level when playing.