i just got done reading the multiple level thinking chapter in sklansky's theory and practice book. i feel that i imply 0-2 stages of MLT pretty consistantly, but can anyone reword that last 2 stages of MLT a little less retarded then sklansky? any help on this would be great.

thanks

I haven't read the book, what kind of stages is he writing about about?

"He should know that I know that, yada yada"?

I'm just reading sklanskys book now. I haven't read the chapter on multi level thinking yet.

The only thoughts I have on the subject is that you should only use multi level thinking in high skilled, high buy in games where your opponents are likely to be thinking on multiple levels. Otherwise you end up overthinking things and making dumb plays against mediocre opponents who don't understand what you are doing.

ABC against the donks, multi level thinking against the pros.

My problem is play really badly against donks as I have "fancy play syndrome" where I make lots of fancy plays that the donks just don't understand or appreciate. I then get frustrated and annoyed, go on tilt and donk myself out playing like a muppet.

Leave the fancy plays for the fancy opponents!

__________________

Super System mentions that exact thing.....havent read the theory yet

yea basically that nonsense. "you need to think that he thinks that you think that he thinks your thinking what he thinks you have. " all a tad confusing to me haha

great advice man thanks. because im not playing high limit yet, and i guess i can donk myself out of alot of cash if i play too fancy. so ill go back to MLT when i need it haha.

Ok I read sklanskys chapter on multi level thinking so I could properly comment.

The post I made before still holds true. I have a couple of hands at home from the PFO tournament where I incorporated multi level thinking on my opponents to win pots.

In the small cash games most players have mastered zeroth and second level thinking. A general zeroth level thinker will act weak when strong and strong when weak. A second level thinker will mix things between the two.

When you move up levels players will use your image and their image and your past actions to pidgeon hole you on a hand and then react in a way as to to either get you off the hand or extract as much money as possible. This is done by manipulating what you think they have by the size of their bets and actions.

An example I have about fancy play syndrome is this. A zeroth level thinker picks up AA in MP. he raises 6 times the BB. You get suspicious. He's trying to buy the pot it seems and is raising way too much. You call with suited connectors hoping to trap his suspected 2 overcards. You flop top pair and think you have him. He comes out swinging and overbets the pot. Now you know he's bluffing. You re raise him and pot commit yourself. He bets all in, You call. He turns over AA and you lose.

Multi level thinking is very hard to give examples for unless you've played in that situation. You have to think what your opponent is thinking all the time. Sklansky does an ok job of describing it but unless you've played some of the bigger games you just won't get it.

__________________

There's 4 levels that Phil Gordon describe, that I go by.(OMG I can't find it. I remember most of it anyway)

1.What do I have

2.What do I think my opponent have

3. What does my opponent think that I have

4. What does my opponent think that I think they have

Of course I only you the first 2 at the levels I play. Sometimes 3, but rarely.

__________________
idkmybffjill?

right on, thanks for the advice. on AP i dont incorparate the 3 4 MLT stages, cus they are tards on that limit. but when i build a roll and move up i will re read the section

Forget the term 'multi-level thinking' it's too ambiguous. all that he thinks, I think, he thinks, i think nonsense can basically go on forever. What it means is how do you play.

Level 1 - Straightforward

Level 2 - Hand reading

Level 3 - Deception

Level 4 - Manipulation

Problem is, depending on your opponent the best strategy could be any of the above. You have to be capable of playing straightforward as well as deceptive, implementing all levels depending on the opponent.

For instance, you can't read the hand of a maniac and a deceptive play is pointless against a callling station, you need to be straightforward against the calling station and manipulative against the maniac. it's not just that level 3 and 4 are useful in high stakes games, it's the opponent style that determines what level to employ

__________________
For poker news, strategy, and more, check out my daily column at Examiner.com