Levels of thinking both micro and macro (lc)

[amoeba]

This will be an extended post in which I will try to add more to.

At first it might not seem coherent but I think some of the ideas presented are worthwhile.

I have gathered enough from this board and thus I would like to contribute something back.

So most of us know about the levels of thinking in poker. level 1 : I play my own hand. level 2 : I think about what the opponent holds. level 3 : I think about what my opponent thinks I have.

at first it seems that level 3 thinking doesn't happen that often at small stakes but really it does. Everytime you are representing a hand in a bluff or slowplaying you are really using level 3 thinking.

now occasionally we venture in to level 4 thinking which is I think about what my opponent wants me to think he has, which translates roughly to "my opponent is trying to represent hand A but really has hand B". this blends in to level 2 thinking as the way you pick out whether an opponent has hand A or hand B is likely based on frequency, previous hands, logical progression of his line.

any levels above is pointless as it gets cyclical.

Now I think we all do these type of things but perhaps subconciously.

My real aim of this post is to talk about what I call macro levels of thinking.

Every opponent is broken down at any 1 time in to a combination of weak or aggressive + tight or loose. Next you can further break them down in to this combination both preflop and postflop as there are players that are lag preflop but tight passive postflop for example. really you can even break it down further in to player type by street.

John Juanda once said "don't play a big pot without a big hand". Along the loose ----> tight spectrum by street, what it really boils down to is how much is a specific player willing to commit with a specific hand on a specific type of board. once you know the range of hands and the amount that a player is willing to commit with that range at any point in the hand, you can create an exploitive strategy to take advantage.

I'll give an example.

I am playing ABC style. a good opponent feels that I overcommit with TP type hands and thus moves to exploit with a set/twopair miner type of strategy. When I realize his shift, I should exploit his strategy by tightening up my postflop play and loosening up my preflop play. I have exploited because I have realized that he won't commit without a hand that beats TP and thus the vast amount of time I'm either winning his blinds or winning with a continuation bet. Also, the times he has a set or 2 pair, my hand range is so wide that often I just get away from my 7 high.

As my exploitive strategy continues, my opponent if he is smart, while undergo another shift and likely either become much more aggressive preflop because the vast amount of time I'm preflop raising with not much and/or he exploits by being much looser postflop and say calling down or raising even when his pocket pair doesn't hit a set.

Regardless, my exploitive strategy has caused a shift in his play once it has been running long enough and of course I have to shift my play again.

Thus it becomes a long paper rock sissors game and I honestly believe at higher levels of poker, it is really about who realizes his opponent has changed styles first.

[4_2_it]

Nice post. What % of players at each level do you think actually exploit 'level 4' thinking?

For instance:

xx% - NL $25
xx% - NL $50
xx% - NL $100
xx% - NL $200
xx% - NL $400

[amoeba]

so you guys are probably asking "what does this have to do with me? I'm playing 25nl and ABC works"

well thats true. it works because you are using the optimal exploitive strategy against the majority of your opponents which capitolizes on their looseness both preflop and postflop.

As table texture changes however, your own play style will have to change.

You make money in poker in one of two ways, either making opponent laydown the best hand or getting paid off with the best hand.

What determines how good you do both of these things in the end comes down to your bluffing/commitment frequency. It is your frequency which lies at the heart of every strategy and it should be varied dependent on opponent.

for each opponent you are playing. ask yourself "how does he play preflop?" "how does he play postflop?" " how do I play preflop to exploit that? " "how do I play postflop to exploit that?" "as I continue my exploitive strategy, will I create shifts in strategy from him or the other players?" "what frequency of bluffs should I run against this guy to be optimal?" " what metagame issues will come up as a result of my strategy?"

[amoeba]

I think it happens as early as 50s or 100s.

example.

I raise preflop, guy calls.

flop comes T 9 3 rainbow.

I continuation bet, he raises with say 77.

I am trying to represent overpair but because of my continuation bet frequency and/or my preflop raise frequency, he does not believe what I'm trying to represent.

[TheWorstPlayer]

Very nice post and I agree with it in general (hell, I don't think you really said anything anyone can disagree with). But this particular example, I'm not sure how often it happens at NL50 and NL100. In my recollection, very few people would raise here with 77 because they notice that you are very aggressive. In my recollection, they would call if they doubted you had an overpair, not raise. In fact, that is true at NL400 and NL600 too. Very rarely do I see people raising and then showing down hands like 77 here. But I see them calling and showing down 77 all the time when the preflop raiser gives up on his AK. It usually checks down.

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
In my recollection, very few people would raise here with 77 because they notice that you are very aggressive. In my recollection, they would call if they doubted you had an overpair, not raise. In fact, that is true at NL400 and NL600 too. Very rarely do I see people raising and then showing down hands like 77 here. But I see them calling and showing down 77 all the time when the preflop raiser gives up on his AK. It usually checks down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am this calling station, though I usually make a value bet on the river [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it happens as early as 50s or 100s.

example.

I raise preflop, guy calls.

flop comes T 9 3 rainbow.

I continuation bet, he raises with say 77.

I am trying to represent overpair but because of my continuation bet frequency and/or my preflop raise frequency, he does not believe what I'm trying to represent.

[/ QUOTE ]

I follow you. I have noticed when I play 6-max NL $200 that 1 or 2 others at the table exhibit this where at NL $100 I was lucky to see or two in total when I 4-tabled.

Is this consistent with what everyone else has seen?

[amoeba]

yeah you are right.

then it becomes a second barrel frequency game.

I think it is typically a bad idea to check the turn then bet the river though, unless if you want to do so with an overpair to exploit the low folding equity of the "raise preflop, bet the flop, check the turn, bet the river" line.

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
yeah you are right.

then it becomes a second barrel frequency game.

I think it is typically a bad idea to check the turn then bet the river though, unless if you want to do so with an overpair to exploit the low folding equity of the "raise preflop, bet the flop, check the turn, bet the river" line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, check behind turn bet river is the worst ever line with UI AK. It's pretty solid with TP+ though in certain situations.

[TheWorstPlayer]

I challenge everyone to run this line at least once in their next session when they are heads up in position with an overpair: Pot flop, check behind turn, push river. The bigger the push the better. If it's 10x pot, sweet. You will be amazed. Guarantee it. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]