levels of thinking - Page 2

Reef · #11 02-28-2005, 05:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
whenever i play against daniel in cash games i tend to think on level 8, because i know that he is only capable of thinking on level 7.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I have to go to level 9 against you.. but isn't this stuff circular, causing me to actually only be on the same level 7 as Daniel in a way?

levels past 3>>> overrated

TStoneMBD · #12 02-28-2005, 05:35 PM

one time when daniel shovelled in his chips, i could tell that he was thinking on level 22 by the way he blinked. i countered with level 23 to say the least.

MtDon · #13 02-28-2005, 05:36 PM

You left out level one: What cards do I have?

Reef · #14 02-28-2005, 05:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
one time when daniel shovelled in his chips, i could tell that he was thinking on level 22 by the way he blinked. i countered with level 23 to say the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

n1. I might've gotten suckered into only going to 21.

Reef · #15 02-28-2005, 05:37 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You left out level one: What cards do I have?

[/ QUOTE ]

when you're thinking into the level 40's, only sissies need to know this level 1.

MagikKid · #16 02-28-2005, 05:38 PM

In TOP, Sklansky talks about "reverting to game theory" in situations that would require a person to consider thinking on these levels, as it would get too confusing to be of much value. My personal belief is that where some people rely on game theory, others go by their intuition in the situation. Just recently Daniel said he made a laydown in a tournament that would have neccesitated a call if he were a "math guy", but because of his read he was 100% sure he was beaten. I have a sneaking suspicion that Daniel was "goofing" for the camera on this topic.

Magik

Bodhi · #17 02-28-2005, 06:20 PM

I agree that whoever you heard say that was talking out of his ass. Anyway, I don't like the metaphor "levels of thinking" because it presents a misleading image of human cognition. Thinking about what he thinks you think, etc., is the same as distinguishing other people's beliefs from your own, and how they distinguish your beliefs from their own. Worse yet, "levels of thinking" implies an infinite regress (but this might only bother the philosophically minded).

DeadWallet · #18 03-01-2005, 07:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I have a sneaking suspicion that Daniel was "goofing" for the camera on this topic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Or maybe, Daniel thought you would think this.....

underaged · #19 03-01-2005, 09:51 PM

As mentioned before, it's pointless and actuall -EV to think at level four or five when your moronic opponents only consider what they have and MAYBE consider what you might be holding.

Snoogins47 · #20 03-01-2005, 10:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As mentioned before, it's pointless and actuall -EV to think at level four or five when your moronic opponents only consider what they have and MAYBE consider what you might be holding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I was playing in a low stakes NL game with somebody that I know pretty well. He has this little sort of quirky trick that he often uses, that works against the monkeys, but long story short, I knew what he held. I was 100% certain it was AA or KK.

I called, with J9s, because I like to mess with people's heads.

See, here's the deal. I know what he has. He knows that I know what he has, and I know that he knows this. He leads on a 2 7 Q flop, and I raise. Since he knows that I know what he has, he can only assume that I was trying to outflop him. He'll now think that I outflopped him, but hopefully he won't go past this level and realize that I'm thinking on this high of a level. He re-raises me, I fold, and we later had a 20 minute discussion that ended with a consensus to never fight a land war in Asia.