[Closed] Proof that Game Theory Optimal Can Be Found With Thoughts Alone

all of a sudden i am interested in this GTO thingy. thanks, prim.

That girl might be chipleader in a MTT. She has a nice rack.

Originally posted by Pokamon
all of a sudden i am interested in this GTO thingy. thanks, prim.

So, okay, the whole discussion is about: Can you play according to GTO when you exploit your Villains only by observation and thoughts? The thread opener thinks that you can do this only by exploiting Villains and then you automatically play GTO-conform. This means that GTO can be solved by thinking and exploiting Villains alone.... The thread opener seemed to write a book about that and thinks he found the ultimative solution for poker players.

So! Weee, I also made a constructive contribution here, Yesss! ♠_ugly:

i am afraid to say, that your second to last post was way more enlighting. even floxy was not critical of it and believe me, he is always very fault-finding.

Indeed nothing to say to the second to last, but concerning the last, come on Prim... Don't you go and untroll this thread !
Think about the popcorn spewing.

Originally posted by MyFloXyBabY

told you.

Ooooooh excuuuuse me....back to trolling....pardon, topic

So yeah, semantics. Hows this sound.

“If you applied the highest exploitative Level of Thought you would be using an unexploitable equilibrium strategy.”

It’s easy to see how this works by looking at a simple childs game, like Tic-Tak-Toe…

you should do the layout for yadis book. it will sell so much better.

screw that.

you should apply for secretary of education.

Yeah, because tic-tac-toe is so much like poker. Best poker players are old tic-tac-toe pros reconverted and all.
I would like to hear about level of thoughts in chess though. Nothing to say about this game for a change ?

Originally posted by MyFloXyBabY

I would like to hear about level of thoughts in chess though. Nothing to say about this game for a change ?

in that regard chess is very unlike. there are no levels, as all the information is available.

there used to be different styles, but with computers being so much better than humans we have learned, that perfection has no style. there are just good and bad moves.

Of course. That's why I took the chess example. It's too easy always going around tic-tac-toe and implying poker is the same. It is not closer to tic-tac-toe than it is to chess or hex or any other game that can inspire GT.
Globally his level of thought thing is crap. Never heard of it in the several books I read about GT.

now i feel miserable. this is the first time you agreed w me and i still think, that i failed so terribly, derailing the thread, decending all standards. the truth hurts, even if unsaid.

There are Levels in Chess. Hidden factors give birth to Level Three, when deception comes into it, You use Levels One and Two to play Chess.

This stuff clearly doesn't work on poker but maybe I'll take some chess coaching from you.
So there are levels in chess and by understanding those, I will crush chess?

As I understand it, level 1 would be about "what we should do" and level 2 would be "what villain should do", right?
Could you explain how this makes me crush chess? Because to me it looks exactly like if I would ask a running coach how to beat Usain Bolt and he answers "well, beating Bolt has 2 levels. Level 1: get fit, Level 2: run faster" and then he takes my money

Tried to copy-paste but it looked weird. Lot of bullshit in this topic anyway so continue...

Oh fuck off La, I solved your semantic issue, don't you think it's about time you stopped giving me shit.

This isn't useless La, it's the most profitable way to play poker. By exploiting. Now I've found all the theory behind exploiting all the way from beginner through to, errrm, equalibrium.

I was thinking about how these Levels work in Chess last night, and I realised that in fact you are able to deceive anyone but a perfect opponent. There is very little opportunity to decieve them, but, it is still there. I play sometimes with my sister, and I have this move where I fake to attack from the left flank whilst secretly arranging my pieces for a quick switch to the right. I am deceiving her, but this wouldn't work if she were capable of seeing all my possible future moves.

Essentially we only use Level One and Two in Chess. We calculate our most profitable play by comparing our pieces to the opponents. However, against an imperfect opponent we are still able to deceive them in the same way as we would an exploitable poker player. And so we use all the other Levels too.

I don't get why you tell me to fuck off.. I think my question was quite reasonable, because you have several times said that this applies to other games. You have actually even said that you can tell a beginner what to do in every game.

I took a quick look at your book and what the levels were. I thought about how it applies in chess and I concluded that your levels would be as I described above. 1) what we should do 2) what our opponent probably does... Then I asked how does this help us.

Now, I think what you just said about deceiving and stuff, can be said in one simple phrase that we all know: "thinking X steps ahead". And I think chess is just that. Thinking ahead. Thinking about how the thing will play our, predicting what your opponent probably does next and trying to deceive and make counter plays for that.

Where did we need your levels and how they can improve us as chess players? I think that is a legitimate question and you can not think I'm giving you shit. If you make a claim and I ask how does that work in practice, you should be able to explain it and not get offended.