Theory of Deception; A poll

I think one must realize that all deceptive plays in poker come from the fact that the optimal betting strategy (in the game theoretic sense) is a mixed strategy. If you constantly play for example AA in a non optimal way, you might mislead others to the value of your hand, but you are not putting up a deceptive play, you are just playing poorly. And as your opponents are learning your leaks the misleading part due to poor play will disappear anyways.

So therefore I think the definition _must_ include the fact that you are doing intentional variations on your strategy and not just making non optimal plays.

So my shot at it would be something like:
Deception in poker: The act of randomizing your betting decisions to conceal information on your hand.

Or alternatively:
Deception in poker: The act of randomizing your betting decisions in order to maximize your EV.

Yes, in my opinion you cannot talk about deceptive play without including the random element. And no, according to my definition, deceptive play is not done for other purposes than maximizing profit [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Plastic: I like your line of thinking, but I don't think that you can talk about deliberately randomizing your play. Deception is very situational and should be applied very rarely and only as necessary. If you randomize your decisions everytime you have AA (or similar holdings) then you will too often be giving up profit. If, when you decide to apply deception, you randomize your decision, you will not always be making the most deceptive play, thereby reducing the value of the opportunity to be deceptive. If you intend on correctly applying deception, then you must do so deliberately and not randomly.

In any case, all this deception business is overrated anyway.

I'm surprised that nobody has sought to broaden the spectrum of our definiton. We may not be in the Psychology forum, but surely any definition that begins, "Deception, in the context of poker..." ought not limit itself to betting patterns. What about table talk? Tells? Table image? Even online - time taken to bet, even screenname choice could apply.

Perhaps creating separate definitons is appropriate here.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised that nobody has sought to broaden the spectrum of our definiton. We may not be in the Psychology forum, but surely any definition that begins, "Deception, in the context of poker..." ought not limit itself to betting patterns. What about table talk? Tells? Table image? Even online - time taken to bet, even screenname choice could apply.

Perhaps creating separate definitons is appropriate here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think a separate definition is necessary. I assumed that "playing your hand" included all the things you mentioned in your post. Although, generally, I would think that too much deception can cost you a serious amount of money. I also think that "psychological" deception is less effective than simple betting pattern deception. Your opponents must be paying attention to your specific actions, associate those actions with a particular hand, you must show down the hand, and then duplicate those actions later on in the game when holding a hand of the opposite strength, and the same opponents must be paying attention to how you act during that hand as well, and remember what you did before, and have the same association between your actions and your betting patterns.

[TaintedRogue]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm surprised that nobody has sought to broaden the spectrum of our definiton. We may not be in the Psychology forum, but surely any definition that begins, "Deception, in the context of poker..." ought not limit itself to betting patterns. What about table talk? Tells? Table image? Even online - time taken to bet, even screenname choice could apply.

Perhaps creating separate definitons is appropriate here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think a separate definition is necessary. I assumed that "playing your hand" included all the things you mentioned in your post. Although, generally, I would think that too much deception can cost you a serious amount of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eating at McDonald's too often will cost you an excessive gain of weight. Eating at McDonald's once a year has no +EV to your health.
The proper use of deception maximizes your +EV. "Proper" would entail the correct frequency of its use.


[ QUOTE ]
I also think that "psychological" deception is less effective than simple betting pattern deception. Your opponents must be paying attention to your specific actions, associate those actions with a particular hand, you must show down the hand, and then duplicate those actions later on in the game when holding a hand of the opposite strength, and the same opponents must be paying attention to how you act during that hand as well, and remember what you did before, and have the same association between your actions and your betting patterns.

[/ QUOTE ]

Great point! If you are that in tune with your opponent's "soul," you could maximize your +EV through deception, however, I have not reached that level.

I think we actually agree. I can see the word "randomize your decisions" sounds a bit too....random. However, still refering to game theory, you would randomize your decisions based on each information set in the game tree which means that you can account for everthing you usually do when you decide to play deceptive. The random element does not mean that you suddenly have to slowplay when there are game conditions that dictate a better strategy.
And at last, random is not 50/50 which obviously would give some erratic play.

I would like to reformulate my definition:
Deceptive play: The act of mixing your betting strategy in order to conceal the value of your hand.

I dont like the notion that you do this to make your opponent play poorly.

too complicated. I think it should be more clear.