Theory of Deception; A poll

[TaintedRogue]

I do not believe that deception can be employed successfully at random. There must be an intelligent thought process prior to employing the play. In general, that means that you do not employ deception when the risk is too great. Also, a little deception goes a long way. You don't bluff into a bluffer, generally speaking.
If 5 people limp in and you raise on the button with 65s, that is a much lower risk, than open/raising UTG with 65s, at a tight table, where you will most likely not steal the blinds and end up with no more than 2-3 opponents.
Limping with AA UTG, when your raises are getting too much respect in a tight game is a good deceptive play. Calling on the button with AA after 3 players have limped in, is not. However, that would be a "randomly chosen" deceptive play.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This means sometimes slowplaying big hands, sometimes fastplaying big hands; similarly, it means sometimes check-folding weak hands and sometimes betting/check-raising weak hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
The above is straight out of Ciaffone/Brier, Middle Limit Holdem.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.

And to everyone who hasn't read this book: the first few chapters contain clear descriptions of some very basic concepts that cannot be compared to any other book I've ever read (I don't have the book on me so I can't list the titles of these chapters right now). One of these chaters is Deception, and it is definately contains the best information I've ever read on this topic. I suggest it to everyone.

[TaintedRogue]

I 2nd that Motion

[pineapple888]

Deception: An attempt to disguise the value you place upon your hand.

Anything else you add can be refuted by specific example.

It doesn't have to be EV. It doesn't have to be random. It certainly doesn't have to be "an art". It doesn't have to work. It doesn't even have to have a purpose.

Using my definition, you can then make statements like "Deception is critical to beating the rake at high-limit games" or "Deception was useless against the fish at my table, I just played ABC poker."

[dana33]

[ QUOTE ]
Deception lowers your EV for that hand, but in the big picture increases your EV for subsequent hands with that opponent.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh?? If I have AA but convince my opponent that I'm on a wild bluff with trash, so that he incorrectly calls instead of folding, then how exactly have I lowered my EV for that hand? Is that not deception?

[TaintedRogue]

[ QUOTE ]
Deception: An attempt to disguise the value you place upon your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a very good definition, however, I think it is just a little to vague.

[ QUOTE ]
Anything else you add can be refuted by specific example.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you dispute the following with a specific example?:

Deception: The art of disguising the true value of your hand, in an attempt to lead your opponent(s) into misplaying their hand.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't have to be EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are not making a deceptive move for the purpose of increasing your +EV, why are you?

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't have to be random.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that making a deceptive move at random, with no rational intention, is a -EV proposition.

[ QUOTE ]
It certainly doesn't have to be "an art".

[/ QUOTE ]

Not unless you believe that playing your hand deceptively, in a foolish manner, has future +EV. The only example I can think of right now, would be where 4 people limp, you're on the button with AA and limp; call it down to the river and show your hand. This of course, being early upon your arrival at the game, against players you don't know. Now you have portrayed yourself as a fish, and, you have still made the deceptive play with a specific purpose.

Now, if you had no time to size up your opponents, and failed to realize that due to level of skill of your opponents, that it would have no effect on how they played against you, well, that would be a "random" play of deception, as there was no intelligent thought behind it, and it would have no +EV value.

I cannot believe that the statement cannot be disputed:

The purpose of playing your hand deceptively is to increase your +EV, either immediately, or, at some point in the future against the opponents you are currently facing.

I cannot think of a deceptive play, chosen totally at random, without any thought, that is a good one.

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't have to work. It doesn't even have to have a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Can you give us an example?

[ QUOTE ]
Using my definition, you can then make statements like "Deception is critical to beating the rake at high-limit games"

[/ QUOTE ]

An example of deception with a purpose.

[ QUOTE ]
or "Deception was useless against the fish at my table, I just played ABC poker."

[/ QUOTE ]

An intelligent thought process.

I am enjoying this discussion, and please do not take my comments as an "attack" upon your position, but instead, just my opinion, looking for an intelligent debate on the subject.

[DrPhysic]

You lowered your ev for that play by not betting out, but slowplaying instead, thereby not getting as much money on the table as you theoretically could have. The effect of the deception may be to get the opponent to make a bet or raise violating the fundamental theorem, whereas he may have folded to your bet, but the theoretical maximum ev for the hand (barring the use of deception) was to bet it. capice?

Doc

[DrPhysic]

Good thought.

My first thoughts are that any definition of deception must take into account at least two things: the effect over <font color="blue">time</font> of the action and it's effect in application of the <font color="blue">fundamental theorem</font>.

Quickie proposal (without sufficient thought):

Deception is any action in violation of the fundamental theorem of poker that has a +ev result due to a subsequent violation of the fundamental theorem of poker by the opponent caused by the disinformation presented by the original action or non-action.

That can probably be improved on, but I think it's pretty close.

Doc

[TaintedRogue]

I like it.......howz this for an improvement?

Deception: Any action in violation of the fundamental theorem of poker, that has a +ev result due to a subsequent violation of the fundamental theorem of poker by the opponent, stemming from the disinformation presented by the original action or non-action.

[DrPhysic]

I like it.

One of the things that some others in the thread are not taking into account in trying to define this is that they try to include all ATTEMPTED deceptions. Not necessary. Inclusion of attempted deception that didn't deceive anyone is not necessary because it is not a deception.

Also, it is not necessary to assume that you won the hand due to the deception. If the opponent misplays the hand as a result of the disinformation but still draws out on you, the deception remains +ev. You still get SklanskyBucks for the deception.

Therefore I think the definition you and I are proposing is not only correct but complete.

Doc