Being Results Orientated, and the FTOP

[Hood]

(this is probably not best suited in the SNG forum... but I've only posted in this one and I'm comfortable here /images/graemlins/laugh.gif)

I've been thinking a lot lately about the replies in these forums that are results-orientated, and how damaging this can be. This is due usually to people posting their results along with their hand histories. But regardless, I still see responders going out of their way to base their comments on the results. For example, posts like: "Well you got it all in with the best hand, you can't ask for more than that."

A good example is the blind Re-Steal Steal (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=908538) thread, I think comments by both durron597 and Erostratus are focused on the results (he had a flush draw) rather than the situation on the flop (you have nothing, he could have absolulely anything). [I mean not to single anyone out, I'm sure I do it too. That thread just encouraged me to write start this one].

I also read this post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=singletable&Number=905965& Forum=All_Forums&Words=bible&Searchpage=0&Limit=25 &Main=904468&Search=true&where=bodysub&Name=&dater ange=1&newerval=1&newertype=w&olderval=&oldertype= &bodyprev=#Post905965) by Phill S:

[ QUOTE ]
ok, first off, he showed QQ, therefor youd have pushed off the third guy and split. so by definition you made the wrong play. as according to the fundamental theory of poker.

must remember to re-read the big yellow bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

In context, I think this post is saying "well he showed QQ, and if you had known that you would have played it differently. Hence, according to FTOP, the play was wrong".

If I understand correctly, that just screams of being results-orientated. But is this interpreting Sklansky wrong? As the FTOP states:

[ QUOTE ]
Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, ...[the converse]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is wrong.

I'm not good at hypothetical examples, so go with me on this. Lets say you've got KK PF and someone pushes on you. Now lets say that you know he would only make this move with AA or AK. If this was the case then it would be correct to call because there's a greater chance he holds AK. I'm confident that (presuming your read was right) this is the correct play. So you call and they flip over AA. Was your play then incorrect? No. It was still correct to call. If the same thing happens in the next hand, is it still correct to call? Yes, it is. But FTOP states that it was the wrong play (or the opponents "gains") because you didn't play like you knew their cards. The FTOP seems to ignore the fact that you put your opponent on a range of hands, and, based on the odds of holding those hands you make a +EV decision.

Or am I (and other posters) interpretting fsop incorrectly? or am I just talking rubbish?

[Phill S]

id rather go for a holistic answer.

first tho. let me say that i did state in the thread is was a wrong fold earlier on. i stated why, based on assumptions.

with the results i could then evaluate what i said, and specifically how it was played in one off terms. i usually try to answer things this was. i come up with the overall view, then go into specifics if the results are there.

now the fundamental theory is highly theoretical. its more a pricipal than anything else. perhaps its my dodgy interpretaion, but in your KK AA example, you do infact make an error according to the FTOP. if you can see the cards, youd fold, no second thought.

now the way i see it is at its purest its based on a perfect poker world, where you ahve perfect poker reads and can work out difficult poker math in your head. in interpretting the theory to the real world of poker, especially the type we play online, you do have to go for the overall effect, and not be specific. so in the slightly warped (for the want of a better word) version of the theory, it is most likely your opponant has AK, so your most likely the fave here.

Phill
ps, going back to your origional point, yes, your right. do what i do, go for the theory, where you dont know your opponants cards. then go for the specifics (if at all), where you do.

[ddubois]

You're arguing semantics. A play can be the right play against a range of hands and still be the wrong play in "an FTOP sense".

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]

Or am I (and other posters) interpretting fsop incorrectly? or am I just talking rubbish?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're basically right, although it really is kind of a semantics argument about what "correct" means - it means whatever you want it to mean.

I think the FTOP is a fine and mostly true statement. It's just not very useful for making poker decisions.

eastbay

[PrayingMantis]

Without getting into too much detail, I'm with you on that. FTOP is a nice thing, but it is not a helpful tool, or concept, for making decisions at poker. It is even less relevant for tournament poker, where decisions are many times should be made based upon a much more wider range of factors, besides what is right or wrong in regard to merely your opponent/s' vs. your specific cards. That's my opinion.

[Jason Strasser]

I agree hood, the FTOP and being results oriented are two very different concepts, and it is much better not to be results oriented then to try to judge how closely you play to the FTOP.

Here is something else I think about sometimes. Think about how you would play if you knew everyone's cards. I'd be calling preflop at the low level (and raising to get heads up) at just about every moment possible. You'd play a completely different game.

[RobGW]

In this example you played it "correctly" with KK. But your opponent still "gains". I don't see any contradiction there. Opponents gaining doesn't necessarily mean you played it wrong. They are two different concepts. I do agree with you on the results oriented stuff though.

[RoyalSampler]

There are 6 AA combinations and 8 AK
so (6 * 18% + 8 * 66%) / 14 = 45%

I only did the hard math because my gut feel was that the numbers were against you. But I'm often wrong /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[durron597]

[ QUOTE ]

A good example is the blind Re-Steal Steal (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=908538) thread, I think comments by both durron597 and Erostratus are focused on the results (he had a flush draw) rather than the situation on the flop (you have nothing, he could have absolulely anything). [I mean not to single anyone out, I'm sure I do it too. That thread just encouraged me to write start this one].


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't going to reply to this thread because I mostly agree with what the other posters were saying, except you mentioned me being results oriented by name so I have to address that. I said I would fold on that flop, in that situation because I can't beat any pair, or any flush draw without an A or a Q, so what am I ahead of? I also said I would push preflop because the poster only has 10xBB. How is that results oriented?

[hummusx]

I was thinking there were 16 ways to get AK...

[RoyalSampler]

There would be if he didn't already hold two of the kings.

[Hood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A good example is the blind Re-Steal Steal (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=908538) thread, I think comments by both durron597 and Erostratus are focused on the results (he had a flush draw) rather than the situation on the flop (you have nothing, he could have absolulely anything). [I mean not to single anyone out, I'm sure I do it too. That thread just encouraged me to write start this one].


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't going to reply to this thread because I mostly agree with what the other posters were saying, except you mentioned me being results oriented by name so I have to address that. I said I would fold on that flop, in that situation because I can't beat any pair, or any flush draw without an A or a Q, so what am I ahead of? I also said I would push preflop because the poster only has 10xBB. How is that results oriented?

[/ QUOTE ]

"It sounds like your read was good and you got your chips in with the best of it. What are you complaining about?"

As I tried to say in my initial post, I really didn't mean to point fingers at anyone, I just needed an example of what I was saying and that thread was the last I read. My appologies if it came across the wrong way.

[Hood]

[ QUOTE ]
There would be if he didn't already hold two of the kings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes good point... as I say, I'm bad at examples /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Hood]

Thanks all for your replies in this thread.

I do disagree that it's simply a 'semantic' argument. I think my initial post was a little wishy-woshy. Basically I think my argument is made up of two points:

a) FTOP encourages people to be results-orientated when analysing their play.
b) It's fundementally incorrect to state you lose when you don't play like you would if you saw your opponents cards.

If we take the FTOP point of view, the theoretical "correct" play is not only to know the cards your opponents have, but also to know what cards are coming and to know how your players are going to act. If you knew these 3 things, you could make the correct play. However poker is a game of impartial information:

1) You don't know what cards your opponents have,
2) You don't know what cards are coming, and
3) You don't know how your opponents will act.

Because you'll never "know" any of these things, the "correct" play is to assign odds to each variable, then make the highest EV play based on those odds. In my poor AK example - even though he shows AA, it may still be correct to call all-in because before you saw AA, his hand is a probability distribution* and represents more than one value.

Similarly, how your opponent will act and what cards are coming are probabilities until they take a "state". If there's an 80% chance your opponent will bluff if you check to them and you want to induce a bluff, you check to them. If then check behind you, was it incorrect to check in the first place? No, not if your 80% assumption was correct. Ok so this is pretty basic gambling stuff.

Yet the FTOP focuses on one of these points and states that that is the theoretical best play is when you "know" what cards your opponents have. If we're doing theoretical, it should include points 2 and 3. But if we're doing practical (which I'm suggesting), then the statement is just wrong - the correct play is to have the correct probability distribution* for the players cards.


*I may be forgetting my stats and using the wrong term here

[PrayingMantis]

Good post.

I think we can see FTOP as a kind of a non-realistic ideal, which we should try to get closer to. What I mean, is that while you'll rarely know your opponents' EXACT cards, your ability to make a good read, is, in a sense, narrowing their range of hands more and more. Idealy, you'll know what they have. The better you are, the more accurate you'll be in putting your opponents on hands, and so - the more possible it will be for you to make THEM make the mistakes.

As to the probabilies of the cards to come: I don't agree with you, as the FTOP deals with this aspect in its way. Wrong or right moves are based on the *probabilites* of the cards to come, not on the cards themselves, so you don't need to know the exact cards.

However, your point in regard to your opponents' behaviour is very much true, in my opinion, and is the biggest flaw in FTOP. Knowing your opponents' cards is not enough, certainly not in tournament poker. In order to make the "optimal" move you have to know *exatly* how they will play in every situation and street to come, and you want to know the same thing about *any other* player at the table or tournament (even if they do not participate in the specific hand) for you to make the optimal decision. There are many reasons for this.

However, even your opponent does not really know how often, exacly, will he fold to your push on the turn, for instance. Nobody knows, even if your opponent's cards are exposed. These are never exact numbers, only assesments, reads, guesstimations, psychology. And in this sense, FTOP, as stated, is completely irrelevant, and marginally wrong.

[Hood]

Thanks for the response.

[ QUOTE ]
As to the probabilies of the cards to come: I don't agree with you, as the FTOP deals with this aspect in its way. Wrong or right moves are based on the *probabilites* of the cards to come, not on the cards themselves, so you don't need to know the exact cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. In the same way, knowing what your opponent holds (and how they will act) is also based on the probabilities, not the actual cards (or actions). I just don't see a point in diffrentiating between them. All 3 factors can never be known exactly, it's based on probabilities.

However good your read, you can never be 100% on your opponents cards. To take another (poor theoretical) example, if you're 99% sure if your opponent is bluffing, yet the pot is offering you 1/100 odds, then the correct play may be to fold.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. In the same way, knowing what your opponent holds (and how they will act) is also based on the probabilities, not the actual cards (or actions). I just don't see a point in diffrentiating between them. All 3 factors can never be known exactly, it's based on probabilities.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll use your 3 factors to explain what I meant. If you know your opponent's cards, AND exactly how he will react in any situations, you can play an optimal game (at least in regard to ring), without knowing the "cards to come" factor. This is a matter of understanding what is "optimal" in regard to gambling and game theory.

Optimal, in this sense, means getting the BEST of it, every time, because you know the EXACT *probablity* of any card to come. You dont miss any information for making the best decision, in a LONG-TERM perspective, and with keeping in mind that we are GAMBLING.

And from another perspective: the meaning of the probability of the cards to come is not the same as the meaning of the probability your opponent is holding a specific hand, or will act in a certain way. The two last factors are always debatable, and based on reads, psycology, history, etc, and that's why narrowing them into a "range" (of cards and behaviours) will always be the *best* you can do, and all moves should be judged upon our ability to assess these "ranges" and "behaviours", and not upon what our opponent actually HAD or DID (EXACTLY). In this sense, I completely agree with your points. And that's why poker is *so* complicated.

[Hood]

Yes that makes a lot of sense, thanks for clarifying, I agree completely. Thanks, an interesting discussion.