Multi-Level Thinking: Experience needed

The level of thinking people I play with is "do I feel lucky?". Not sure what level that is but all I know is it's good for making me money I play mostly $20 buy-in home games.

You put the level of thinking at the $10/$20 level at level 3? At $10/$20 it is beyond level 5 thinking.

I wonder what your level is lol.


Whatever works! Sounds like level 1...maybe 1.5. Your in transition.

I read your entire post and understood it perfectly. You did say that they weren't correct but you could have at least made them a little more accurate. Allow me to enlighten you.

The levels you stated in your post doesn't even cover most of the things you should think about when your playing. It should look more like this...

Level 0: ALL IN!!! I hope I win.
Level 1: What do I have?
Level 2: What do I have? + What position am I in?
Level 3: What do I have? + What position am I in? + What I think my opponent has?
Level 4: What do I have? + What position am I in? + What I think my opponent has? + Do I have odds to call?


Just because you are playing micro stakes doesn't mean that you should only be thinking 1 level above your opponent. The higher your level of thinking the more of an advantage you will have against others. This is not always the case though. For example if you want to steal the pot and your opponent is a fish that doesn't even know what pot odds are then the size of the raise doesn't matter, in that case you would determine if you want to bluff by how he has played other hands. If the opponent calls every bet and every raise and if you are considering a bluff then obviously the bluff is a bad idea because he is a calling station, on the other hand if the opponent is too tight then you can min raise as a bluff to take the pot down because in that case it would be the right move.

That should've been your first post then. Still its redundant 'cause we can go on and on about what exactly makes up level 2 or level 3, etc and thats not what the post is about. I think I got my point across with what I'm looking for in my OP.

Also, you'll just get yourself in trouble if you play more than 1 level above your opponent. Every situation is different as you stated to cover yourself, but in the end you shouldn't ever make sophisticated moves on unsophisticated players or even consider it. If your thinking 2 levels above anyone then I consider that to be sophisticated play with a less sophisticated player. It's like trying to bluff an idiot. Don't and KISS. way I see it.

I agree with you somewhat. Perhaps I should have been more specific; when you are faced with a decision it is OK to use a much higher level of thinking to make your decision, but in situations where you are putting your opponent in a position to make a decision then you should be thinking at only one level above him. (Situations such as a bet or raise leaves the decision up to the opponent.)

I play 2nl/5nl and attempt to think at levels 3-4. So far I'm not a consistent winning player by doing this.

I believe there are quiet a few people at the micros that think like this, yet because its such a lottery, end up losing more than they win?

I fiddle about at the .05/.1 & .1/.25 online where level 3 thinking seems plenty to beat most players. In home games I play with real money ;-) (£ 1/2) where level 3 and 4 are usually good enough. Online tourneys can be a different kettle of fish. I often play at $5-20 buy in where the level of opponents can be as low as -1 (especially at the beginning) to levels 4 and 5 as we get deeper. Incidentally, this is the appeal of tourneys for me - to have to think at a decent level.

NO

You cannot think at a significantly higher level than your opponent.

If your opponent is not thinking what your range is then how can you think at a significantly higher level where you question how his perception of your range alters his play. He isnt thinking about your range. So you cannot think at that level.

At best you can think one level above your opponent.

/thread.

this is all you need to remeber usually. I think even up to 400nl you needn't get into leveling wars. I've seen several times where over thinking has cost peeps lots of money.

The thread starter is referring to the standard definition of "levels of thinking" which I think he's defined correctly. You can make up your own idea of "levels", but that's different than the standard definition.

And Stu is making the correct statement, again for the standard definition of "levels of thinking".

It doesn't mean that what you've listed is invalid, but don't try to change a pre-existing definition.


And like c9 says, don't worry about it. You need thinking/attentive opponents before you can even consider level 3.

Level -1: Suited and they almost connect!............should I?.........Yeah..........ALL IN!

Alright, so it sounds like I was over thinking or getting a bit ahead of myself and there's actually a long road ahead before I need to dive into this. I'll probably know when the time comes. Thanks all.

Yeah, the only way to learn poker is by playing. You can arm yourself with a lot of good information from books, but you have to get into the game and feel your way around before you can really start to know how to play. If you're starting at the micros just know that 5nl and 2nl your oppoenents are level 1 all the way unless you force them into level 2 by making them feel uncomfortable, and even then half the time they're not capable. Thats not to say there aren't plenty of 0ish players out there, but you'll know who they are pretty readily. I skipped over 10NL pretty much, opting to take advantage of the edge of being deep stacked at 5nl instead for my 10 dollar buy in period of BRM (started with 50 bucks a bit over a year ago). At 25NL I think you start to see levels 3 and 4 start making their appearance, but you still have plenty of 1 and 2 kicking around. It seems through these levels the players try their damndest to stick to level 1, and sometimes 2 unless your force them to up their game, as always certain regs will be exceptions.

Generally in the micros they're a clown unless they give you reason to believe otherwise, and even then its often situational. You can even drive some silly 0 up to a 3 or so if you piss him off by flaming him in chat and running trappy lines on him too aggressively.

Music to my ears . Congrats on building your BR and your play at .25NL. It seems you should grind there exclusively for awhile. Thats my goal anyway.

I believe decisions are based on more than what you think your opponent has or what he thinks you have. Position, ranges, stack and bet size, outs all come into play.

All stakes $10nl and lower the average player is going to be a level 1 thinker.

It seems the average player at $25nl is more level 2.

The players who are most likely to be at the average level of thinking or worse, are those who's stats generally reflect little work on playing a solid game. They will have a large gap between their VPIP/PFR, they will be on the passive side.

The players more likely to be above the average level of thinking are those that are aggressive, that have solid stats like 18/15. LAG's in particular are generally +level thinkers because they have to take into consideration how their constant betting is affecting the other player's decisions against them, so they are basically forced to be a multiple level thinker.

Personally, primarily on Full Tilt (On Bodog & UB 80 - 90% of the players in micros are level 1-2 or less) I would say that about 25 - 50% of the players are level 2 thinkers at .02/.05 - .05/.1 levels. Depending on the table - usually 6 max - you may find 1-2 level 3 thinkers (but they usually don't even know they're level 3 thinkers, lol)