Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Ken's avatar

There's a meta game here. Intelligent people with malicious intent instinctively capitalize on these dynamics and use them to their advantage.

EG the man/woman who is bizarrely open and providing far too much unnecessary disclosure at the beginning of a relationship is *less* trustworthy than you imply.

S/he's rigging the system in their favor. A savvy Machiavellian will extract value in a myriad of ways by playing both sides of this dynamic—meaning there is no reliable poker tell in this behavior set. Relying on these heuristics only makes one conscious of the potential game, it doesn't make you better at playing it...and it could make you perform significantly worse if you don't think beyond the first few hands of texas hold em.

Expand full comment
Yung and easily Freudened's avatar

I have actually been thinking about a very similar range analogy. If you have a really strong range/the nuts, you very rarely want to slowplay (i.e. "protect" your check-back range) unless the SPR is really low (since you can reliably stack your opponent in fewer streets). I think this also applies to signaling games in real life. I notice a lot of people do the meta-contrarian thing and try to countersignal their success/status in social events. They are effectively trying to "trap" people into thinking they are less successful than they really are, to then potentially get a more satisfying form of clout later (like a grand reveal). But long-term this just makes you lose out on potential opportunities.

Expand full comment
1 more comment...

No posts