Putting our opponents on a ... level?

This thread is the result of this article, which got me thinking about leveling:

Quote:

---

Leveling is an in-game battle of psychology.

It stems from this:
Level 0: What do I have?
Level 1: What does my opponent have?
Level 2: What does my opponent think I have?
Level 3: What does my opponent think that I think they have?
Level 4: What does my opponent think that I think they think I have?

A great example of leveling is shown in this hand.

Lets say it HU between two thinking, aggressive opponents. 5/10:
Abe opens BU to 30
Bob (hero) calls with ATo

flop is A92
Bob checks

Abe cbets 45 (this is a board that Abe will be cbetting with nearly 100% of his range. Because both players know this, there is some interesting leveling that can go on here.)

Bob c/r to 125 (In this case, Bob is making this c/r because he thinks he can "level" his opponent to play back at him with air. A c/r on this board looks very unbelievable to Abe for many reasons: 1) Bob not 3betting pre takes out a lot of BIG aces from his range 2) Bob knows Abe is cbetting a wide range here
3) The board is so dry that it would be counter-intuitive to fast play a big hand.)

Because of all these factors, Bobs c/r can look very "bluffy" to Abe and can cause him to attempt a re-bluff or even to stack off very light on this board.

Lets say they both get it in here and Abe shows JJ and Bob scoops the pot with AT. He has essentially leveled his oppenent to stack off light by thinking a level ahead of his oppenent.

Obviously this is an important concept at mid-high stakes because you need to get into your oppenents head and decipher what actions he is likely to take in response to something that you do. Another easy example is a 3betting a guy two hands in a row. Some players may give more respect the second time because "you wouldnt do that with a bluff twice" or they might be more inclined to think your pushing them around. It is important to figure out which level your opposition is on, so that you may play correctly against them.

---

This is one of the winning articles in nutsinho's coaching competition. For those who havn't read these already, go read them now: http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...t81487-50.html

I don't have much experience playing this kind of psycological game since I'm still pretty new to online poker and havn't played in stakes where there are really good thinking players. I'd like to pose some questions regarding levelling to the more experienced players posting in the BC. I'd also like to get the opinions from other micro stakes players about leveling.

What I'd really like to know from the experienced players is how often they use leveling in their games? Do they use this concept every hand, or is it only applicable in certain situations? For example, I feel like it would be very profitable to play a hand with a thinking opponent, figure out what level he is thinking on, and then think one level above this for the remainder of hands you play with him. Would this even be feasable, since it seems as though the level a player thinks on can change throughout a match?

For example, lets looks at the heads up match that gametight gives above. Does the BU, who had JJ in that hand, figure out that his opponent was thinking a level above him and start thinking at an even higher level in the hands following that hand? At what point does it become necessary to forgo leveling and apply game theory?

Does leveling change based on what type of game we're playing (HE, 6-max, FR)?

To the micro stakes players: Where can we use leveling for greater profits in the micro stakes and where have you already used leveling?

Also, what level should we default to against an unknown player? IMO, at the micro stakes we should be thinking on level 1 (what does my opponent have?) by default becuase most of our opponents are only playing their cards. If we encounter a player who demonstrates that they can think on level 1 then we take note of this and start thinking on level 2 (what does my opponent think I have?) against them.

Thats it for now I guess,

discuss.

At micro stakes we should default to lvl 1 because our opponents are mostly on level 0 (playing their cards). Once we get a read that someone is capable of level 1 thinking, then we use level 2 against them. I cant imagine ever running into a scenario at microstakes where level 3 thinking is warranted.

looking at those levels, it looks best to just think one level ahead of your opponent. anything more than that and you're probably outguessing yourself too much

Quote:

---

looking at those levels, it looks best to just think one level ahead of your opponent. anything more than that and you're probably outguessing yourself too much

---

Good point, I forgot to add this into the OP, but often we may take some action when we believe our opponent to be thinking on a certain level, but if he is thinking on a different level our action could be completely different/opposite. Our goal should be to think exactly one level ahead of our opponent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kfaess

At what point does it become necessary to forgo leveling and apply game theory?

---

When your opponent is better than you.

Also I agree with bjsaust about no level 3 needed in the micros. Where can we face a level 3 thinker? 25NL, 50NL? just curious...

Well technically we need to think on level 3 when someone is thinking on level 2. How many opponents are really thinking "what does he think I have?" at 25NL or lower. Very rarely. If they are its generally a fairly amaturish trapping attempt.

i realized that after I posted, was going to edit it, but i was also curious when we can face a level 3 thinker(thus needing to think level 4 ourselves)

I couldnt imagine you get there until high stakes. You can also combat high level thinking by reverting to lvl 0 thinking. Does him no good to be thinking "what does he think that I think that he thinks..." when you're just making a hand and betting for value.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bjsaust

I couldnt imagine you get there until high stakes. You can also combat high level thinking by reverting to lvl 0 thinking. Does him no good to be thinking "what does he think that I think that he thinks..." when you're just making a hand and betting for value.

---

LOL...You could go crazy thinking that way 10-tabling...

When you say Level 0 thinking, I take it you mean level 0 GAME THEORY thinking. Not level 0 MICRO STAKES DONK thinking( I have "whatever", it is very strong--->I PUSH)

No, I mean 0 level thinking, just playing your cards instead of using game theory. I mean, if you really get into it we should be adjusting as our opponent adjusts, but:

If the correct level to think on is one above our opponent, then our opponent is making a mistake if he's thinking more than one level above us. If he's trying to work out if we're representing tight or wide ranges and wether we want him to call or raise or fold, and we just play our cards, he'll make mistakes. After he clues to the fact that you've started playing your cards then you can start changing things up again.

Its all fairly pointless for now though, 1st and 2nd level is all you really need up to 100nl anyway.

Quote:

---

Its all fairly pointless for now though, 1st and 2nd level is all you really need up to 100nl anyway.

---

I think you're probly correct here but I would def like to get some other players opinions who are playing at higher stakes.

If we go down a level in thinking without knowing what level our opponent is thinking on then doesn't that give him a chance to make the correcy play even though he is thinking on the wrong level?

An example would be from the AT/JJ HU hand above. Let's say we go back to level 0 and simply raise our pair of aces for value without considering what he has and what he is thinking about. Well, he may think that your bet looks bluffy given his c-bet range, and the dry board. But he also may think that you know it will look this way to him and so you wouldn't make this bet with air. Therefore, he may fold, which is not at all the result you wanted.

I'm not talking about doing it in a vacuum. I'm talking about a theoretical situation where you've both been operating on 4th/5th level type thinking, then doing this as an adjustment.