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.

too complicated. I think it should be more clear.

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.

[TaintedRogue]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Can you give an example of how playing your hand in a straight forward manner would be considered deceptive?

[/ QUOTE ]

You raise preflop with pocket nines in EP and get two callers. You flop quads and come out beting , you bet the turn and the river. Straighforward and deceptive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn good example. [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[TaintedRogue]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the Grammar Police. And you, my friend, are busted.

Your first violation: Section 14.1 of the Unified Grammar Code: Superfluous use of a comma. Two counts.
Violation #2: Section 14.3d: Omission of a comma, leading to the subjunction of a clause. One count.
Violation #3: Section 15.10: Blatant omission of a semi-colon, leading to a run-on sentence. One count.
Violation #4: Section 31.0: Construction of a prolix sentence. One count.

I'd worry most about your Section 31.0. I think it still carries the death penalty in Florida & Texas.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't know the difference between a adjective and an adverb.

[TaintedRogue]

[ QUOTE ]
The definition doesnt make sense because it uses EV in such a way that suggests it isn't a final product of the value of the play.

[/ QUOTE ]

Noted. I thought it did. I'll take a look.

[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.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's a level that needs to be reached. The more you play, the less often you will give off psychological tells, as you will realize your more astute opponents will start to pick up on these. I think it is best to play every hand the same way physically (ie look the same whether you plan on betting, checking or raising, and take the same amount of time for every decision, etc.) and let your opponents only be able to pick up your betting patterns. This will minimize the amount of information you give off overall. Deviation from this standard play would be considered deception. Once again, don't do it often. Great example with the McDonald's.