I really don't know.
PokerNews has an article by Tim Lavali about the Pareto Principle applied to poker that talks about moves.
The Pareto Principle is the 80/20 rule. 80% of the benefit comes from 20% of the effort.
Lavali uses the term move in a way that implies it's some kind of attempt to use deception, not straight-forward behavior.
The second part, which is perhaps a more advanced play, is that many really good moves at the poker table need a set-up. You need to make the first bet and fold to the reraise a few times to set the player up for the big kill. Or you need to not defend your blinds, in order to pounce when the blind stealer gets too greedy. So, you are using moves and plays that you know will lose you small amounts of chips, in order to set up the big score.
He seems to think everything is so calculated, so planned out. It's all manipulation, doing things that have a purpose of causing a certain reaction in your opponent that becomes habit to them which you can exploit later. Part of a move is conditioning your opponent.
I supposed there's something to that. I don't know. I think of it more as observation of how a specific opponent reacts and then exploiting that later.
Is poker really about moves that require a setup intended to condition your opponents?
Labels: culture of poker