Read this or do not read this, you will regret both.
There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what is not true; the other is to refuse to accept what is true. This quote by Kierkegaard is the situation in poker where my opponents judge my play. Why? Emotion, ego, and underestimation of another player. Playing the flake, the fish, and evaluation of a TPA, LPA, and TAG, LAG, UAG with a nitty image. All the books of the first two are especially fun because they say to punish limpers, or people that are too tight or loose and passive etc… The information and creativity from this is endless for any horrible style and image.
This leads to underestimating overall play. Reading books led to understanding all the information about why and how to exploit this type of player. So, countering this is actually easy because the straightforward move lets this player know who has read books and what they understand in situations from what is printed in poker books
about the weak opponents. This player just has to be obvious with my play to chum the waters for this type of fish.
Social psychology has let this player understand to put my opponent in an avoidance-avoidance conflict. This happens when a person has two choices and either choice will have a negative result. For example, a person has to pay a big fine or face a prison sentence, but in real life they could avoid either situation by running. In poker for example, when my opponent has two choices; fold to one bet or payoff my hand and knowing this player will not re-raise or shove. Knowing they will only call because of the prior information about a specific individual. Either choice will have a negative result, fold to one bet and lose an uncontested pot or pay off the best hand.
After polarized play at the table and hopefully it was against one of the better players; image will let this player bluff in the same manner because the opponent (‘s) will now feel they could be getting trapped again with psychology tricking the brain into folding when they should be calling. This will lead to guessing by my opponents instead of playing properly.
This situation is one where the opponent is fooled and this goes back to the original quote from this post. Because of my prior play and the situation is set up by understanding psychology and the person whom this player is playing poker against with philosophy as the final ingredient. Knowing the situation before it presents itself against the opponent who thinks they are entitled to my chips because of how they label my image, style of play, and then it is polarized in their mind then backed up by what they are seeing at the table; then only to get played by what they perceive as the weakest player at the table. This is where ego and emotion will make their decisions moving forward from this and comparable situations.
This type of player (this covers the majority of poker players) will always over value and over play their hands against me because of the perception of what is a weak player by what they have read, and this transfers to what they think and see at the table. They are simple in thought because of underestimating an opponent and thinking, by putting an abnormal amount of chips in the middle will always be better than understanding the player and the situation. Action, have to give action to get action.
In conclusion, having detailed information that defines how they play their hands; for example, will they call with a hand they will not bet with or bet with a hand they will not call with; this is the root leak in which to exploit people’s universal play. This weak player is trying to get the opponent off their game by pissing them off by my approach and then needling them in the chat. Reverse image and reverse dynamics always gets the other people to play with emotion and ego.
Making concrete decisions against my style is proper in the minds of my opponent because they do not think about the abstract in situations when they feel confident or have a read on a particular opponent but since this player thinks abstractly being one and two steps ahead of my counterparts this will confuse them. A paradox of thinking is created, whether or not to exploit my style after being burned by the weakest player; a person, whom has trained themselves to exploit weakness but when presented with a comparable situation again do they resist the temptation? Just like the title of the post, whether they choose to play against my polarized image or not a player will regret both. Adversity from mistakes does not build character but reveals it instead.