1p0kerb0y
09-27-2004, 06:43 PM
Upon re-reading The Theory of Poker, I came across the fundamental theorem of poker and began thinking about it,
[ 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, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose
[/ QUOTE ]
So I got to thinking about this, and not only is it 100% true, it is virtually the basis for winning the game. I mean think about it: If you could see all of the exposed cards at once, you could play virtually perfect poker, assuming you were good at the mathematics and such. Poker would be a 0 sum game (minus the house cost). Or would it?
See, the thing is, I know players who would virtually STILL play incorrectly at times EVEN IF they knew what my cards were! Several examples of this would be drawing to a hand when they don't have the correct pot odds to do so; Failing to raise when they have a nice pot equity edge, even though the hand is not yet made, etc.
So is there a way to improve the Fundamental Theorem of Poker to make it EVEN MORE TRUE? You bet. (no pun intended there) Is it important that we do this? I don't know. How important is the Fundamental Theorem of Poker? When you consider that in The Theory of Poker it is described as being the equivalent of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus to calculus, I would say it is very important to make it as true as possible as well as as accurate as possible.
So what if it were worded such as:
Every time you play a hand differently from the mathematically correct way if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way as the mathematically correct way if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the mathematically correct way if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way as the mathematically correct way they if they could see all your cards, you lose
I don't pretend to be a poker scholar or the such, rather I am a stundent interested in learning and understanding the game to the highest level possible, although I am fairly certain I will never come close to reaching the point that David Sklansky has. It is possible that I am being very meticulous here, but it is also possible that I have found a more correct wording of the theorem.
Either way, I expect to get totally FLAMED for this and hope that you all realize that I am just giving FOOD FOR THOUGHT.
[ 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, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose
[/ QUOTE ]
So I got to thinking about this, and not only is it 100% true, it is virtually the basis for winning the game. I mean think about it: If you could see all of the exposed cards at once, you could play virtually perfect poker, assuming you were good at the mathematics and such. Poker would be a 0 sum game (minus the house cost). Or would it?
See, the thing is, I know players who would virtually STILL play incorrectly at times EVEN IF they knew what my cards were! Several examples of this would be drawing to a hand when they don't have the correct pot odds to do so; Failing to raise when they have a nice pot equity edge, even though the hand is not yet made, etc.
So is there a way to improve the Fundamental Theorem of Poker to make it EVEN MORE TRUE? You bet. (no pun intended there) Is it important that we do this? I don't know. How important is the Fundamental Theorem of Poker? When you consider that in The Theory of Poker it is described as being the equivalent of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus to calculus, I would say it is very important to make it as true as possible as well as as accurate as possible.
So what if it were worded such as:
Every time you play a hand differently from the mathematically correct way if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way as the mathematically correct way if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the mathematically correct way if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way as the mathematically correct way they if they could see all your cards, you lose
I don't pretend to be a poker scholar or the such, rather I am a stundent interested in learning and understanding the game to the highest level possible, although I am fairly certain I will never come close to reaching the point that David Sklansky has. It is possible that I am being very meticulous here, but it is also possible that I have found a more correct wording of the theorem.
Either way, I expect to get totally FLAMED for this and hope that you all realize that I am just giving FOOD FOR THOUGHT.