The Mother of All Dilemmas

Yadoula

I have a gigantic, rediculous dilemma, a riddle, which I hoped you guys might be able to help me solve.

I’m a professional poker player who decided one day to write a training guide for beginners. To ensure this guide was as efficient as possible, I decided to organise all poker theory into something we call the ‘Levels of Thought’, which give us the stages of development of a poker player. I clearly understood all poker theory, so thought this would be an easy task, but it took me 5 very long years to complete. By the end, I had realised that the reason this task had been so difficult was because these levels of thought make up a rational thought-process built into the mind of all beings and is used by all beings to make all decisions. I had mapped out the strategic capabilities of the mind.

If you think this revelation would go down a treat amongst the poker community, you couldn’t be more wrong. This strategic thought-process is built into our minds, and what I have realised, is that all irrational strategies that the person has come to trust in, conflict with the thought-process causing something very similar to cognitive dissonance. Basically, if you are a poker player who has come to trust in imperfect plays, and I come to explain how these Levels work in respect of poker, you are going to rip off my head and spew down my throat.

I’ve spent years trawling poker forums to discuss this with the masses, and I’ve been banned from them all for doing nothing more than explain how these levels of thought really work. I discussed it with some of the most famous poker theorists. With mathematicians. With all kinds of people, but I always face the same problem. When I explain how these Levels work these people will all do anything they can to discredit my logic to prevent themselves from recognising how they work to protect the trust they have imperfect strategies.

This would just be annoying for book sales, but there are other things that I have realised which, in line with this CogD issue, become gigantic for society as a whole.

You ever seen a film called a beautiful mind? This guy called John Nash concocted an unbeatable strategy. Nash’s equilibrium. This strategy is always imperfect, and is used by all economists, business men, politicians, Poker players, you name it, they all love Nash’s Equilibrium. Game theory is huge nowadays and Nash provided the pinnacle of game theory knowledge. The problem is, this unbeatable strategy is like the Anti-game. It sucks the potential for profit from the game, and by corrupting the minds of the players it is secretly sucking the life out of our society.

There are other things that the logic I’ve discovered will help with. I’m no psychologist, but I can see that autistic people struggle with Level Three. I presume, now that all the pieces of Level Three have been discovered we will find it easier to treat these people??? I also see how narcissists subconsciously use one specific section of Level Three to justify their abusive behaviour. If they were taught to consciously understand how we strategize using this level, this problem would be cured. There are all kinds of ways that this thing can help others. I mean, I’m pretty sure that all mental suffering is caused by not knowing how these Levels work.

I just gave up on the poker world. I’ve given up on mathematicians. If you would like to see my most recent attempt to push some of this knowledge amongst the poker community, check out this link https://www.pokerstrategy.com/forum/thread.php?postid=2913613#post2913613 that is from a few days ago. They banned me for speaking nothing but sense.

I am at my wits end. I decided to send this through to you guys because you are among the most open-minded people out there. I put up a little thread on here once before and I was impressed with the comments. I don’t know how you might help me get this logic appraised and get this logic out there. But I feel it is my duty to continue trying.

Please, ask any questions you like. And if you happen to know an open minded psychologist who is treating narsissism, point them my way???

khaled

I'm intrigued but I don't know anything about poker or game theory ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. If you could give the most dumbed-down version possible of those levels in a comment, I think more people might be able to participate (this is probably impossible but you could try? maybe?)

Hanover

↪Yadoula

The problem is that I have no idea how poker works, but I can say that those who do (the others in the various forums where you've been ejected) have universally rejected you. The site you posted sarcastically scoffed at you. My assumption is that if I were to actually figure out what you were saying, I'd reach the same conclusion as they have.

ChatteringMonkey

You could start by adressing Pokerguy's concerns :

What you have described is how we change our range based on what we know villain knows we know and so on. You can continue that I know you know I know thing infinitely. And then at some point, maybe you will reach "equilibrium" where both guys play only AA or something like that. But designing ranges can be done with math. GTO is a mathematical concept, as I explained before. We can take villain's range and find a mathematically perfect way to react to that. GTO has nothing to do with how we think or how villain thinks. So, you can't say that different thought processes ultimately lead to GTO. — Pokerguy

Why is Game Theory Optimum, level Infinity? I also see no reason for this, you do seem to be mixing up categories without a clear reason.

We all already know these things. "What I did was arrange all Poker theory into the Levels of Thought. And it works perfectly." That is like putting a solid block of iron to a fish soup and saying it is tasty. You have just mixed up concepts that everyone already knows and described them in an incredibly complex way. It adds no value to us. — Pokerguy

Ideas have instrumental value for those guys, it is supposed to help them playing the game better (and win more money). If you come up with something that doesn't build on the tradition that has stood up to the test of time and worked for them, or just formulate it in a more complex way, I can understand that they are not willing to consider it further.

unenlightened

The problem is, this unbeatable strategy is like the Anti-game. It sucks the potential for profit from the game, and by corrupting the minds of the players it is secretly sucking the life out of our society. — Yadoula

My understanding is that poker is a zero sum game, with an element of chance. In that case, the only way to profit (luck aside) is to play with others who do not have an optimised strategy. So the unbeatable strategy inevitably sucks the profit from the game if everyone applies it.

Beyond that, I understand that the unbeatable strategy involves being unpredictable, and thus bluff.

Application of game theory to society at large is extremely problematic though, because to play a game is already to have agreed the rules. An unbeatable strategy would be not to bother with the cards, but simply to shoot the other players and take their money. But this is against the rules, and the rules are what constitute the game which is theorised. The game of society is a game of making and unmaking the rules of the game, such that the unbeatable strategy can become a losing strategy by a simple change of the law. Slap a big tax on gambling and poker becomes a negative sum game.

I wrote something about game theory ages ago, which you might like to look at.

Yadoula

To address the issue those on that poker site had with my logic-

They say that GTO is a mathematical equation. And so you cant work it out using the strategic thought-process built into our minds.

Game Theory itself is the science of rational decision making, so to say that thoughts couldn't possibly lead to Game Theory Optimal is rediculous. I've mapped out the rational decision-making method used by humans, and it leads to GTO.

What I'm saying is that yes, John Nash, back in 1950, found a mathematical way to reach game theory optimal. I have now found another way to reach the same place. GTO is one specific strategy. A specific set of moves. I have found another way to concoct the same strategy. Instead of using Nash's Math, we just use the Levels of the Mind.

I can prove it really easily - You ever play tick-tack-toe as a kid. We call it Naughts and Crosses in the UK. Well, after you have played this game a few times with a certain person you realise that there is no point in playing anymore because every game ends in a draw. The reason that every game ends in a draw is is because both you and the opponent have reached GTO. As kids, none of us studied a complex mathematical equation. We didnt use any math at all. We used our minds, what poker players call the Levels of thought, and we reached GTO.

I can prove it really easily but they keep banning me and blocking me as they are desperate to stop me speaking. I cant get anywhere with these guys. It's just one irrational argument after the next. I mean, the evidence I just presented to you is childsplay to a poker theorist. They are just going mental.

Yadoula

To address the concerns those on the poker site had -

They say that GTO is a complex mathematical equation and can not be calculated using the mind without using some complex math.

I can prove they are wrong very easily, this is rediculous, but I just get blocked and banned from their sites. They mock me and then quickly silence me.

Proof - Have you ever played tic-tak-toe? After playing for a short while with the same opponent you realise that there is no longer any point in playing. This is because you have both reached GTO. You didnt use any complex math. You used only the mind. You used the method that I am trying to explain to everyone.

Back in 1950 John Nash found a way to calculate GTO using math. I have now found another way. A far simpler way. It's childs-play. But the mind rejects anything unrecognised about this built-in thought-process. The more experienced you are in the 'game', the more violent the rejection. This makes it almost impossible for me to get the work appraised.

BrianW

↪Yadoula

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.” - Einstein

So, we are the six-year olds and you are the guy who understands game theory. What you're saying sounds like it could be interesting so please explain.

ChatteringMonkey

They say that GTO is a complex mathematical equation and can not be calculated using the mind without using some complex math.

I can prove they are wrong very easily, this is rediculous, but I just get blocked and banned from their sites. They mock me and then quickly silence me. — Yadoula

That's not what they said though.

They said GTO is a mathematical equation by which the optimal range can be calculated as a counter to a given opponents range.

And Level thinking is level thinking, where you can put opponents on a range depending on the level they are thinking at, and adjust your range accordingly. And so theoretically you could get to level infinity this way...

The question, as I understand it, is why would GTO be the same as level infinity? It seems to be two different things, which you are mixing together for no apparent reason.

Yadoula

They said pretty clearly about 100 times that; "GTO has nothing to do with thoughts". "You cant reach GTO using thoughts alone". "You need math to find GTO".

I'm saying that both, using the math, and, using these Levels, leads you to the same set of moves. The same strategy. GTO.

We will need a good mathematician to calculate GTO in Tic-tak-toe using math. But it is easy for a child to work it out using their mind. By all means do get a mathematician in here, and I'll get my 7 year old girl, we can record a little session and you will see clearly that they both use the same strategy.

Yadoula

↪BrianW

Game Theory is the study of rational decision-making. People in many fields use it to help them make the best decisions possible.

There are two types of "best strategy" that we can apply.

- There is a strategy we poker players call exploitative. This type of strategy maximises your profit by playing against your opponents weaknesses. If the goal-keeper is short, we aim our shot somewhere towards the top of the goal.

- The only other type of strategy, we poker players call, GTO. Game Theory Optimal. This strategy does not account for the opponents weaknesses, but instead, gives us the best strategy we could use on average against all opponents. We would basically aim our shot to all areas of the goal, so that the keeper didnt know where we were going to aim next.

There are pro's and cons to using both of these strategies. What I am saying here, is that trusting in GTO as the best strategy causes conflict in the mind, because we subconsciously know that this is clearly not going to be best strategy to adopt in almost any real life situation.

Yadoula

↪BrianW

Game Theory is the study of rational decision making. People in all kinds of fields use it to help them make the best possible decisions.

There are two types of "Best Decision" that you can make -

- What we poker players call exploitative. This strategy aims to maximise your 'winnings' by choosing the strategy that best plays against your opponents weaknesses. For example, if you were playing football and were against a short goal-keeper, you would aim somewhere towards the top of the goal.

- What we poker players call GTO. This strategy aims to make the most profit against all the different types of opponents regardless of the individuals weakness. If you use this strategy you will, basically, aim your shot into all the different parts of the goal, so that the opponent doesnt know which way you are going to go.

There are pros and cons to using both of these strategies. What I am saying, is that trusting in GTO as the best strategy causes a conflict in your mind, this is because subconsciously we all know that this is not the best strategy that we can adopt in almost any real life situation.

BrianW

↪Yadoula

Then, which strategy do you propose and why? Coz they both have pros and cons.

Yadoula

↪BrianW

All I'm saying here is that you need to learn the exploitative theory before learning GTO. To prevent this psychological problem.

The natural thought-process that we use is almost entirely exploitative. This means that if you learn GTO before learning how to exploit, your mind will stop you from being able to see how to exploit.

Pilgrim

The only decent poker is real life poker, bricks and mortar. All online poker is either horribly rigged or hugely open to abuse (collusion, bots, admin accts and so on). The "Levels Of Thought" notion is nothing new, it's in most poker books.

Overall I find poker a bit of a nonsense. All theories and strategies are based around some kind of knowledge or assumption of how an opponent plays and operates and maths/probabilities ensues from that knowledge. Your opening post in the link you provided states "we somehow know that he plays with a real tight range".

Anyone who plays with a predictable pattern of behaviours is, imho, a bad poker player. Poker books exist to create bad players, to dupe people into thinking they are "poker students" and to drum into them certain ways of playing. That just creates robots who all think they are good players but who are in fact bad players because their actions are mechanical, predictable, set in patterns.

Thus the only real way to approach the game is to act purely randomly so that the opponent has no information about how they play. No ranges, no rules, no conditions for raising or folding. Just outright random behaviour.

Ultimately this turns the game into one of pure luck.

matt

↪Pilgrim

How would one act randomly? Would it be acting trans-consciously based on the cards that flop, turn, and river? The game does seem to ultimately come down to luck. You were "lucky" to guess correctly when you called that person's river bluff. This is probably not the case however considering possible tells being displayed by the bluffer's body language. Poker is a game of rhythm.

ChatteringMonkey

They said pretty clearly about 100 times that; "GTO has nothing to do with thoughts". "You cant reach GTO using thoughts alone". "You need math to find GTO".

I'm saying that both, using the math, and, using these Levels, leads you to the same set of moves. The same strategy. GTO. — Yadoula

Yes, you just keep asserting this, but where is your argument, reasoning or proof for it?

I don't think it leads to the same strategy.

GTO is a strategy that gives you the most expected value against a wide range of hands opponents could play. This will give you, I presume, steady value but not the most value. The unthinking aspect of GTO is that you don't really have to pay attention and think about how your opponent might adapt and change his ranges.

A good poker player will get better results by finding weakness and exploiting opponents on the fly. This requires attention and thinking about how opponents adapt etc... I guess this is what they mean by GTO requires no thought.

ChatteringMonkey

Thus the only real way to approach the game is to act purely randomly so that the opponent has no information about how they play. No ranges, no rules, no conditions for raising or folding. Just outright random behaviour.

Ultimately this turns the game into one of pure luck. — Pilgrim

This is just wrong. Information has some value of course, but in the end it doesn't matter how much information you have, a pair will still lose to three of a kind.

Certain hands have more value than others, the lack of information given by playing randomly will never make up for the difference in value between hands.

BrianW

↪Yadoula

I think I understand your predicament a little better now.
However, I think you are missing the bigger picture. The bigger picture is the reality of gambling or of the gamblers. First, for seasoned gamblers, the strategy of exploitation of weakness, as you have put it, is inherent in our mental mechanism and therefore would have been already taken into consideration. Also, GTO would have been included into those considerations, even if its approach is more deliberate compared to the former strategy.
From my perspective, given the multiple angles of action in a game of poker (considering it is rarely a two man game like boxing), I also believe the GTO strategy is the better approach. Although, this is for the seasoned player who's got an eye on the cards and the other one on the opponents just in case there is a weakness to exploit. (In this way, it seems GTO can also incorporate the exploitation strategy.) Furthermore, it should also be clear that if they have weaknesses to be exploited, then you may also have them. And just as you would compensate against your weaknesses, so also would they. In the end, with the little I understand of both strategies, I would vote in favour of GTO, since it is the more comprehensive of the two.

This means that if you learn GTO before learning how to exploit, your mind will stop you from being able to see how to exploit. — Yadoula

Since the exploitative mechanism is inherent, it means that it manifests first in life activities. So, unless you're worried someone is going to teach their six year old wrong gambling tactics, I think we're safe on that front. Also, unless one is a compulsive gambler, I think when your attention is focused back to the other life activities, your mental capacities which were on high alert during gambling get to relax and get a break. Therefore, the exploitative mechanism, being inherent, gets to return to full gear after some rest during gambling. It may even be therapeutic, if not misused.

Unless I've totally missed your point, this is my take.

Pilgrim

Information has some value of course, but in the end it doesn't matter how much information you have, a pair will still lose to three of a kind — ChatteringMonkey

Certain hands have more value than others, the lack of information given by playing randomly will never make up for the difference in value between hands — ChatteringMonkey

So . . . a pair losing to trips, one hand having more value than another, is the part that is down to pure luck. You can't impact the cards that are dealt off the pack. Hence as I said, if you remove all of the possible information that could be gathered about a person, i.e. no ranges, no rules for opening, raising, reraising etc etc then the game is simple luck. The winner is the one who gets dealt the best hands.

The "art" of poker relies on the fact that so many people stupidly study the game and all get marched down the same set of teaching and thus all end up with playing styles which are predictable.
Only a fool would go into a poker game using any kind of pattern or ruleset for their moves.
At the most crass end of this spectrum I just shove all in every hand, what you do is of no consequence.
If you fold I get the blinds, if you play then luck determines the outcome.

If your defence to that argument is that you are swaying the odds in your favour via your choice of playing or folding depending on what 2 cards you were dealt then we come back to the fact that at that point, YOU are then playing to a ruleset which is information that can be exploited by your opponent.
Hence a weakness.

Being less crass, instead of shoving all in every hand, I could instead generate a random number and act upon that number, i.e. RND 1,2,3 if 1 I call, 2 I raise, 3 I fold. Again you have no data to work on in terms of my playing, no ranges, no info so pure luck will determine the outcome.

Poker in the end is a silly game. One can get wrapped up in the minutia of probabilities and odds but the game boils down to the simple concept of one player expecting the other to provide clues and information for them. That info might be good or it might be a deliberate bum steer but either way it's just a to and fro tussle of hopes, assumptions and dreams.

The basic proposition never changes though. It's 2 sets of cards and one set will have higher value than the other. Luck determines which is which. Everything else is psychobabble nonsense.
Nevertheless the poker industry is enormous and continues to rake in $billions from naive and hopeful idiots who think they have skills.

ChatteringMonkey

The "art" of poker relies on the fact that so many people stupidly study the game and all get marched down the same set of teaching and thus all end up with playing styles which are predictable.

Only a fool would go into a poker game using any kind of pattern or ruleset for their moves.
At the most crass end of this spectrum I just shove all in every hand, what you do is of no consequence.
If you fold I get the blinds, if you play then luck determines the outcome. — Pilgrim

I think you are missing the most basic premise of playing good poker. It's not about a single hand or a couple of hands, it's about getting the most EV out of all of your different hands (good and bad) over a large number of hands played... it's statistical. And you do that, in the first place, by getting your money in with good hands and folding with bad hands... that is the opposite of randomness.

If you shove in with every hand, all I have to do is call with a range that beats 'the range of all hands' and fold with hands that don't beat that range, and I will profit over the long run. That has nothing to do with luck or randomness. Individual hands may be subject to luck, but not the long run. If I consistently get more money in with better odds (which i do by getting in with the right adjusted ranges) that will translate into profit.

Yadoula

↪ChatteringMonkey

Mate, what you said to Pilgrim was all correct. You clearly know lots about Poker. But, everything you said in that post to me was a result of this psychological problem...

You explained some random things about both GTO and exploitation and said that these are the reasons you think my logic is wrong. "GTO is maximising your profit against all kinds of hands". This is true, I already explained this with the goalkeeper analogy earlier, it true, but its completely beside the point. To me, who is extremely well versed in this terminology, this is just crazy talk.

You also said "Where is the argument. evidence or proof". Without going into that evidence here, in that thread I linked, you clearly must have seen my evidence in the very first post. The entire first post was that evidence. If you force me to, I can explain here how clear the evidence is, but I think we've probably fried everyones brains with all this poker jargon already. That entire thread was based on what I deem to be ridiculously strong evidence. I even gave examples to back up the evidence!! And you say, "wheres the evidence?". Come on man, that is not rational. "Your evidence is wrong". "The evidence isnt strong enough".

Now watch, he will see the evidence and come up with a different reason to dismiss it. Never will he accept it. If I go through all poker theory, explain every single factor about the game perfectly, he will just resort to mocking me. They'll join together and get the mods to ban me. If it even gets that far. They'll even complain about the stress as they demand I be removed. They'll do anything, but accept that what I'm saying is true.

Yadoula

↪BrianW

I already took a long rest, a long break from Poker, you're starting to think I might be suffering from some kind of psychological issue but mate, for the last 9 months, since releasing that book, I've been a happy construction worker. A family man. I only talk poker at night after the kids have gone to sleep.

If exploitation is natural, really easy to learn, its childsplay, its more profitable and it leads to GTO when necessary, why bother using GTO instead? You are kinda saying that you should exploit when seeing the weaknesses in the opponents strategy -

- These weaknesses can be created almost as easily as they can be discovered. You can mislead the opponent.

- More importantly, you do have something real wrong about these strategies. Exploitation caters for GTO, it eventually leads to it. If you using purely exploitative logic and can see no way to exploit the opponent you will be using GTO. But, if you start off by using this GTO strategy you are starting at the end, you are skipping the exploitative logic that comes before it and saying "Its ok, I can always go back if I see a weakness". What I'm saying here is that there is a psychological issue that stops you from going back. Your mind will stop you from seeing this exploitative logic if you already understand GTO. You wont be able to see the holes in the opponents strategy that you could exploit, and so what will you do, stay with GTO more.

ChatteringMonkey

↪Yadoula

Alright, I read through the whole post again, and I find myself agreeing pretty much with the other posters again.

Your first post gives an example of adjusting ranges as you think a couple levels deeper. And the range for the furthest level you give, is closer to GTO. That's no proof though that level infinity or equilibrium equals GTO. I mean, maybe it's an indication at best.

And even if it were, what's the point you are trying to make? What should poker players do with this information? It just seems like a mere theoretical issue.

You then say that switching to GTO at some point, causes a psychological issue that prevents you from going back to your regular level thinking. This seems like an empirical question and could be tested. But then you would have to provide evidence for that (i.e. a significant number of observations that a lot of players fall prey to this), which you haven't done as far as I can tell.

I'll leave it at that...

BrianW

↪Yadoula

I see the beginnings of a cyclic argument here so, how about this, if you trust your method is superior, give it a field test. Beat the best of them at poker and you will have proved your point.

Anyway, from what I now understand, the problem isn't whether GTO and Exploitation can accommodate each other, but that, GTO would tend to decline a player's adaptability and prevent them from shifting back to exploitation.

Umm, from what I know through life's experiences, adaptation begins largely in uniquely subjective ways in nature. You may not see how a player can shift back to exploitation after being drilled into GTO, but I believe the need to adapt will force the best players to enhance their brain/mental plasticity towards that goal and probability dictates a certain degree of success, even if low at first.

Yadoula

↪ChatteringMonkey

Come on man, if the ranges always become more balanced as you advance through the Levels, that is pretty good evidence to say that as these Levels become more balanced as they advance.

I was only making that point because it is one of the smallest and most obvious new things I've realised about poker theory. But still non will accept it anyway.

I studyied this psychological problem for years. I've taught these Levels for years. Nobody before me realised that these Levels get more balanced as they advance. I am the leading mind in respect of these Levels. And over all these years studying these Levels I have come up with countless pieces of evidence, but, with everyone in the poker world saying that everything I'm saying is nonsense, that I am not the best at anything other than chatting nonsense, how am I supposed to fund some kind of official test????

Yadoula

↪BrianW

That isnt what will happen unless people know about this psychological problem. Poker will just die. It's nearly there. The number of professional players in plummeting as their winrates plumet. It isnt the first game to go and it wont be the last.

I'm pretty sure that all trust in imperfect strategies, like, "you should eat with your mouth closed", causes this psychological problem. This person will feel disgust when they see someone eating with their mouth open, not because it's particularly disgusting, it wont make him ill, its mostly just this psychological problem causing him discomfort. I think this is a major problem to all of us. So please do keep it in mind as you continue to contemplate such things.

And mate, winning in a game like Poker, a luck based game, is not going to make many people believe me. Reaching enlightenment. That will do it... My name means Hands of God. It also contains the word Allah. This makes it fulfill both Buddhist and Muslim prophecies for the name of some important religious dude who will do all the things I think I can do if only I get some credibility. I dont think there is any point in teaching this to people anymore. I'm going to work on meditation instead. I'm going to work on myself.

BrianW

↪Yadoula

Ok. All the best.

The Mother of All Dilemmas

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions