[Closed] Redefining "The Levels of Thought"

yadijavadi · 2018-02-11T15:03:38Z

Hi All, I'm a pro player who recently released an exploitative theory book. This theory book is called "The Levels" and in it I redefine "The Levels of Thought". I was wondering what you guys make my logic... It's commonly understood that as a player advances they become capable of higher Levels of thought. I've come to realise that this is not true. I've realised that these levels of thought are already built into our human minds and that we can all use them as soon as we learn the rules to the game. Beginners can all use all the levels easily! Which means that they can already exploit like masters. Experienced players, however, struggle immensely with the higher levels. This happens because the experienced player trusts in imperfect plays which conflict with the minds natural decision making process: "The Levels of the Mind". Something called cognitive dissonance is then experienced, and the Levels become more and more difficult to consciously approach. If a player is only consciously aware of Level Two, and they have memorised many plays, they will experience cognitive dissonance anytime they see, or are approached with information related to higher levels of thought. This can be disastrous for them at the tables and gives beginners a huge advantage over them. Experienced players have always defined the Levels of Thought in the past. If you look up these levels, you will see a description written by an experienced player. Once you finish reading this post, the cognitive dissonance in those descriptions will be clear to see. These guys make the higher levels sound very, very confusing. The truth is that they themselves are all confused by these levels. Their own mind is playing tricks on them to stop them from recognising how the levels work! And to help deceive themselves, they also attempt to confuse everyone else. They make the Levels sound impossibly complicated, but in reality, they are very straight-forward. Level One - What we hold Level Two - What the villain holds Level Three - What we appear to hold Level Four - What the opponent is pretending to hold Level Five - What we are pretending to hold I'm an experienced player, and it took me many, many years to map out the Levels of thought. I had to overcome my own cognitive dissonance to unlock each piece of knowledge, which was extremely difficult to do! To make matters worse, whenever I approached any experienced players with any of this information they literally went mental at me. Their own minds will do anything to discredit this logic to protect their trust in imperfect plays. Inevitably you will see them responding to this here post. They do not like this logic. They despise it and can see no sense in it, no matter how clearly it is described to them. These guys didn't help me map out these Levels as I hoped they would, instead, they have hindered me at every step. I had to work on thought-process alone. Piece by piece I puzzled together the most efficient way to think through a poker play. At first it was all extremely complicated but by the end I realised that the entire thought process is remarkably straight-forward. I would spend months working on something and then, in a moment of realisation, would notice that it had been bafflingly easy all along. Time and time again I was shocked by the simplicity of the logic that I was deciphering, which was rather annoying, after all the work I'd put into it. It was annoying, but also amazing. I was entranced by the simplicity of the secrets I was revealing. I had no idea what was going on, but felt obliged to go deeper and deeper.... Once my task was finally complete I had the most profound of revelations. I stumbled across knowledge that blew me away. Once the task was complete, I noticed that I hadn't only mapped out the best way to consider an exploitative poker play, this strategic thought process wasn't only used for poker decisions, it was used for everything. I had accidentally mapped out the mind. Level One - The Self. The strength of our physical self. Level Two - The opponent/object. The strength of their attributes. Level Three - The opponents perception of our strength. This Level is made possible by empathy, the ability to see things through the opponents eyes. Etc, etc. There was far more to these levels than anyone could ever have guessed. I have been delving into them for a long time and not even I fully understand them. To be honest, I think that if anyone can understand them perfectly, they might suddenly come to understand everything. Like Buddha did.......... It really is quite amazing, what you can learn from a simple mind game.

General Poker Discussion

Last Post by VorpalF2F 8 years ago

22 Posts

5 Users

4 Reactions

3,678 Views

RSS

la55i

Joined: 27.01.2013

Posts: 8,896

12.09.2018, 12:15 0

I did reply there. There are different thought processes but the levels as you describe them do not exist in a tangible way. I have said before that those are just opinions and there is no proof that let's you claim that those are facts or that other people have been wrong..

But we could try to keep the discussion going only in that thread.

Blog :spade: Private Coaching :spade: Website

VorpalF2F

Super Moderator

Joined: 02.09.2010

Posts: 45,056

12.09.2018, 17:04 +3

Hi yadijavadi ,
A couple of things: First, "super moderator" does not make me boss. It is just a category of moderator -- there are a couple of things that the supers can do. We are not bosses, nor are we in charge of any people.

When I posted that you had made a great discovery, it was trying -- unsuccessfully -- to point out to you that it seemed like such a great discovery to you.

Here is the exact quote in which I used that phrase:

You give the appearance of someone who has seen a great light, and are basking in the wonder of your discovery. It is indeed a wonderful discovery, but it is far from new, and it is easily understood by school children -- witness the large number of playground games based on levels of deception.

So it appears that you picked 3 words out of a sentence to claim that I went against the argument we have all been making. The entire sentence agrees with that argument.

I also said that you did not describe anything logically. You used vast quantities of words, but no logic.
Logic is a process where one starts with a premise -- then builds on that premise by presenting evidence and drawing conclusions.
You do not define a premise, you present no evidence, and merely present conclusions that everyone knows already then claim that we don't understand you.

from yadijavadi's last post
So this website doesnt search for the truth regarding poker strategy, what you do here is beat down and humiliate anyone who doesnt agree with the strategies you have laid out for them.

Well, we do agree with you. We've said it over and over. In fact I have posted links to articles that show that PokerStrategy.com has that deal with this topic. Perhaps not in the exact words you use, but it is there nonetheless.
This is straight out of the poker glossary:
https://www.pokerstrategy.com/glossary/Levelling_2040/ and has been there for a minimum of 10 years.

The point of almost everyone is that this is not new. It is no great revelation.

I will now close this thread as well.
If you really do have something new to offer, I challenge you to offer it. clearly, and succinctly in a new thread.
I suggest that the title of the thread should be similar to:
Describing the levels of thought from a poker perspective
In that thread, start by outlining clearly what you are going to demonstrate.
Then present evidence for each point you make, taking care to keep the paragraphs respectful, on-topic and brief.

I wish you all the best,
VS

Bizarre hand? Post it in Hand of the Day!!
Mind Games: My blog
As in life, so in a game of hazard, skill will make something of the worst of throws from Moonfleet by JM Falkner