Quote Originally Posted by Erpel
I'm just going to jump in and repeat a comment I have managed to come with a couple of times recently (some in person in sweats, some in posts). Not directly but indirectly related to the subject at hand.

It's blatantly incorrect to state that opponents "only think on level 0". Pretty much all opponents think on levels 0, 1 and 2. The thing is that they don't do it very well.

Sometimes I run into a situation where I end up telling myself that my opponent fails to think on level 0. It can be a situation where there's four to a straight and four to a flush on the board and the opponent is betting his second pair on the river for value. I know the opponent and he never bluffs and I know that a second pair hand for value is in his range and yet I find that I can't call with a hand I think is better simply because there are so many ways he can accidentally have a flush or straight that beats me.

More appropriate to the discussion is expanding on my statement that everyone thinks on levels 0, 1 and 2. I'll use my dad as an example. He's bad at poker. He normally gets level 0 pretty right. He knows what beats what, he can read his hand and he understands relative hand strength some of the time. Does he think on level 1? Let's ask him - do you ever make decisions based on what the other guy has? Yeah, sure - sometimes he bets big, this must mean he has a big hand and I get out of the way. Level 1 thinking. How about level 2? Do you ever make decisions based on what you reckon the opponent thinks you have? Yeah, sure. Sometimes I flop a set or a full house. I've noticed if I just bet out they tend to fold because they think I have a big hand, so I check/call and win a bigger pot that way, if they don't outdraw me. Level 2 thinking.

The question with thinking in levels is not that bad players don't think on certain levels, it's the fact that they don't think about poker on levels particularly well. It's the quality of thinking that's the issue. It's just a really similar argument with range balancing and merging etc. The trick is not to dismiss people as incapable, because if you explain it to them they will understand on a superficial level and go away and misapply it. The trick is to understand how people think about poker, exactly in which ways they are bad and how to exploit those.

It's tempting to jump to the conclusion that because all opponents are terrible you just need to play a simple ABC poker game and profit will follow. This may be true, but it's bad for two reasons. First it's bad because you're not maximising your edge - you could win more by knowing exactly how these players play badly and exploiting it, and second it's bad because you're not practicing identifying and exploiting edges - something that'll only become more important and less obvious when you move up. Opponents need respect at least to the degree that we accept that even the worst (one could argue especially the worst) opponents are worth learning about so we know the exact strengths and weaknesses of their game.

Isn't cbetting a calling station on a good cbet board an obvious example of someone exploiting you without them knowing it?
This post really opened up my eyes. Why are good players able to come down to the micros and pwn for higher win rates than the regs who are grinding the micros? Its because they have a more accurate idea of how their opponents are playing and thinking, and the good players themselves are actually thinking much more clearly. The good players don't just assume every micro player is a loose passive donk, they consider each situation separately and make more correct plays against that specific opponent.