[deepdowntruth]

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.