In adversarial contexts, success often hinges on understanding not just what the opponent knows, but what they believe and how they revise those beliefs. This study investigates how large language models can be made more resilient and strategically capable by modeling the opponent’s reasoning using Bayesian belief revision. By formalizing negotiations as Bayesian games of incomplete information, it is shown that models equipped with belief revision are better able to counter deceptive or willful-thinking adversaries. The findings underscore the role of second-order reasoning in adversarial settings, with implications for social manipulation in the context of, for example, online communication and intelligence gathering.