GTO Poker Theories - Second-Order Thinking
Are you really thinking two or more steps ahead in poker and life? Most people are guilty of being first-order thinkers...
One of the real gifts poker has given me is that it has been a great jumping-off point to learn things from other disciplines like economics, AI, psychology, and Game Theory. So here is a series of articles where I bring some of the most interesting things I have learned from other subjects outside of poker which are applicable to this game we know and love.
Most people stop at the obvious. They see a lever and assume one pull equals one result. That’s first-order thinking; simple, neat, and often wrong.
Second-order thinking, by contrast, asks a better question: “And then what?” It's the mental equivalent of peering around corners. Instead of reacting to what’s in front of you, you’re trying to foresee the ripple effects. How today’s decision might echo tomorrow, or next year, or three headlines down the road.
Say a government slashes interest rates. First-order thinking applauds the move to cheaper loans! More spending! Hooray! But second-order thinking winces. What about asset bubbles? Soaring debt? Inflation knocking on the door like an uninvited relative?
The trouble is, second-order thinking is harder. It demands more mental bandwidth and often means challenging your instincts. But in any complex system—markets, politics, relationships—being able to anticipate knock-on effects is a superpower. It won’t make you omniscient, but it will make you less surprised. And these days, that’s half the game.
Future game
The immediate thing I think of when applying second-order thinking to poker is the concept of future game.
This is where we not only consider the hand in play, but the next hands we play, in our decision.
For example, if we are short-stacked under-the-gun we might fold a tight range. However, if the Big Blind is about to increase and we post it next, second-order thinking would have us play a wider range to avoid blinding out.
Solvers often get future game wrong, particularly when ICM is a factor. There are spots in satellites where everyone should shove when folded to them, and everyone else should fold to that shove. The solver has ignored the fact that the tournament has to end, because it doesn't account for the next hand being played.
This is just one example of second-order thinking in poker; there are likely hundreds I am not even remotely equipped to think about with my own first-order thinking.
What theories from outside of poker have helped your game? Let us know in the comments.
