This writing is perhaps the most important in regards to my general overall ‘thesis’ as well as the future of “game theory”, games, and the associated benefits that go along with understanding them. It seems that there could be defined two distinct perspectives on games whether for example, as a student, a player, a teacher, a philosopher, a game theorist etc.
Its seems there is the ACTUAL meaning/reasoning behind each line or branch of a strategy tree but also then different types of metaphorical views that might inspire players to act in a favorable ways or to remember certain favorable lines.
We often hear and say things such as “Here we should raise for value”, but truly on a higher level it might rather be that we must raise as a complement to our bluffs in the name of balance.
When we first start playing poker, and especially when we make the decision to venture further and deeper into the game, we might (and should) find that our understanding of the game and the driving force behind our decisions changes.
I want to then lay down the division that creates two separate concepts. That is that the ultimate highest level reasoning behind a certain “line”, is the REAL (or true) reason behind it, and that any inferior explanation is a religious perspective.
I’m not sure the usefulness of such an observation will be immediately apparent but I intend it to be the crux of the next evolution of games and game theory. That is to say here we have not defined what the ultimate purpose of a certain strategy line is nor the cause of its implementation (or existence). But we HAVE defined an effective ideal that might be used to compare and contrast what is a religious perspective, and what is not religious perspective (aka what is truth in terms of reasoning behind a certain strategy).