View Single Post
  #1  
Old 12-28-2005, 08:01 PM
mlagoo mlagoo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 811
Default 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.
Reply With Quote