Theory of Deception; A poll

[ 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.