what is the fundamental theorem of poker?

[MikeR]

From The Theory of Poker, by David Sklansky. ©1987, 1989, 1992, 1994 by David Sklansky, (excerpt from book section)
[ QUOTE ]
There are some amateur poker players who find something reprehensible about check raising. They find it devious and deceitful and con sider people who use it to be less than well-bred. Well, check raising is devious and it is deceitful, but being devious and deceitful is precisely what one wants to be in a poker game, as is implied by the Fundamental Theorem of Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is the Fundamental Theorem of Poker?

[jojobinks]

turn to the page 17 of TOP. there, you will find it.

[bobbyi]

"Let me give you a topic: The fundamental theorem is neither fundamental nor a theorem. Discuss amongst yourselves."
-Abdul Jalib

[irongarden]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the Fundamental Theorem of Poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, Sklansky defines the Fundamental Theorm of Poker as something to the effect of "When your opponents play differently than if they knew what you were holding, you gain. When you play your cards differently from the way you'd play them if you knew what your opponents were holding, you lose".

[Mayhap]

It's 90% fun and 10% mental.
/M

[The-Matador]

Whoever has the best cards wins.

[k_squared]

[ QUOTE ]
"Let me give you a topic: The fundamental theorem is neither fundamental nor a theorem. Discuss amongst yourselves."
-Abdul Jalib

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you feel this way? Is there a previous post you have discussed this in? If so it would be a much larger help to be pointed in that direction rather than simply being told it is neither 'fundamental' nor a 'theorem.'

Someone is asking a question... so if we are going to answer it lets do our best to do so rather than simply posting an utterly unprovacative and unhelpful comment given the context of the previous post. If you had perhaps first explained what you felt the Fundamental Theorem was, and then way it is not fundamental or a theorem that would in fact provide a useful foil for deepening our ability to play poker.

I personally think the FTOP provides a great way to analyze your decision making process using an objective criteria. I understand it as saying essentially that everytime you play your cards exactly as you would if you knew exactly what your opponents held you gain. Also conversley, every time you get your opponents to play in such a way that they would have done something differently had they known your cards you gain.

-k_squared

[SheridanCat]

Context for Abdul Jalib quote (http://www.twoplustwo.com/digests/sep99_msg.html)

Discuss.

T

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
so if we are going to answer it lets do our best to do so

[/ QUOTE ]
The guy says that he already owns Theory of Poker and jojobinks pointed him to the exact page where the "theorem" is explained. I don't what you are expecting us to do beyond that. Trying to ineptly paraphrase the chapter for him when he already owns it would be utterly unproductive.

[ QUOTE ]
rather than simply posting an utterly unprovacative and unhelpful comment given the context of the previous post.

[/ QUOTE ]
You must learn to recognize the difference between that which is unprovocative and that by which you refuse to be provoked.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Context for Abdul Jalib quote (http://www.twoplustwo.com/digests/sep99_msg.html)

Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]
That thread is utterly brillant. I don't see how any serious player could not love a thread about a hand between Mason and Abdul featuring comments by the two of them as well as Sklansky, Rick Nebiolo, John Feeney, Fossilman... When Sklanksy says that a hand "is worth a major essay if not a thesis", it generally pays to spend some time with it.

[Schwartzy61]

To answer the man's question I will just quote it from The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky.
[ QUOTE ]
That leads us to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker: 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 ]

Since you already quoted an excerpt from the book I would suppose you had access to it or perhaps you just got that off of the internet as an example of what's in the book. But either way, Sklansky goes on to give some excellent examples of how the Theorem plays out in actual hands. It's a great book, you should get it and/or finish reading it.

[DrPhysic]

Nah! Cards mean nothing. First liar wins.

Doc

[k_squared]

thank you for the link... it looks to be a great read...

-k_squared

[k_squared]

[ QUOTE ]
To answer the man's question I will just quote it from The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky.
[ QUOTE ]
That leads us to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker: 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 ]

Since you already quoted an excerpt from the book I would suppose you had access to it or perhaps you just got that off of the internet as an example of what's in the book. But either way, Sklansky goes on to give some excellent examples of how the Theorem plays out in actual hands. It's a great book, you should get it and/or finish reading it.

[/ QUOTE ]

We all gain by trying to discuss and paraphrase ideas like this because it is in our ability to accurately convey them that we discover whether or not we truly do understand them! If all it took was being able to quote a saying then it would be a lot easier to be a good player than it is. But what is required is understanding, and thoroughly understanding the FTOP and the impact it has on the game is no trivial task (at least as far as I am concerned). We discuss these things to try to deepen our understanding, of the game, and to that end it sometimes takes the back and forth of a conversation.

-k_squared

[k_squared]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so if we are going to answer it lets do our best to do so

[/ QUOTE ]
The guy says that he already owns Theory of Poker and jojobinks pointed him to the exact page where the "theorem" is explained. I don't what you are expecting us to do beyond that. Trying to ineptly paraphrase the chapter for him when he already owns it would be utterly unproductive.


[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree as i said in a previous post it is in discussing something like this that we learn a lot about how well we do in fact understand it. If all we needed was to read the 2+2 books and never had to discuss the ides contained with-in then this board looses a lot of its value because we are pointlessly doing something that could just be accomplished by reading those books... So, we can do more than point him to a page that he obviously misunderstands... and try to rearticulate it in a way that he can comprehend (and it is worth noting again, that if we can't rearticulate it then we probably don't understand it).

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
rather than simply posting an utterly unprovacative and unhelpful comment given the context of the previous post.

[/ QUOTE ]

You must learn to recognize the difference between that which is unprovocative and that by which you refuse to be provoked.

[/ QUOTE ]

and again, what is the point of saying this OTHER than to be confrontational? I do think a lot about the game and have been provoked by your comment referring to this other thread (although how you initially referenced it was not entirely helpful). In fact, I asked you to say more about it so that we can all use it as another tool with which to deepen our understanding of the game. I haven't had time to yet read the thread in its entirety, but I will do so, and it certainly does contain some great information... although it would be interesting to hear you discuss what you found interesting in that thread (other than the fact that some great poker minds were involved in the conversation)... What did you learn from it? What points do you find the most compelling? Did you disagree with anything?

-k_squared

[raisins]

This post was made Sept. 1, 1999. There was a thread in RGP at the same time on Abdul's rewrite of FTOP, namely the Probabilistic Fundamental Theorem of Poker. Abdul states that he thinks this is what Sklansky actually menat to write. Could be. It describes what we actually do when we put an opponent on a range of hands and figure out an appropriate play. Gary Carson, of all people, makes a very astute comparison of the two in the thread. A serch on Google Groups for PFTOP and Sklansky should pull it up.

Regards.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
turn to the page 17 of TOP. there, you will find it.

[/ QUOTE ]


Woah-woah-woah -- you mean I'm supposed to go that far into the book?!?!

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[Monty Cantsin]

[ QUOTE ]
Context for Abdul Jalib quote (http://www.twoplustwo.com/digests/sep99_msg.html)

Discuss.

T

[/ QUOTE ]


From that thread:

-------------------------------

Posted by: Kate (kate@thegassers.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 1 September 1999, at 9:39 p.m.

Hello -- Can anyone help with 2 questions? 1. 3-6 HE,9-handed, I had JdJh in 4th pos. and called 3rd in; 5 saw the flop -- 9hThQh! I bet for value, dropped 2; turn was 7o; I bet again, figuring I had the best of it with 17 outs on the draws and 2 others in the pot. 1 dropped. The river was Ao, and I checked and folded.


Posted by: David Sklansky (Dsklansky@aol.com)
Posted on: Wednesday, 1 September 1999, at 9:55 p.m.

You played the hand fine although other alternatives are OK as well.

-------------------------------

Wow, times have changed.

/mc

[Schwartzy61]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To answer the man's question I will just quote it from The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky.
[ QUOTE ]
That leads us to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker: 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 ]

Since you already quoted an excerpt from the book I would suppose you had access to it or perhaps you just got that off of the internet as an example of what's in the book. But either way, Sklansky goes on to give some excellent examples of how the Theorem plays out in actual hands. It's a great book, you should get it and/or finish reading it.

[/ QUOTE ]

We all gain by trying to discuss and paraphrase ideas like this because it is in our ability to accurately convey them that we discover whether or not we truly do understand them! If all it took was being able to quote a saying then it would be a lot easier to be a good player than it is. But what is required is understanding, and thoroughly understanding the FTOP and the impact it has on the game is no trivial task (at least as far as I am concerned). We discuss these things to try to deepen our understanding, of the game, and to that end it sometimes takes the back and forth of a conversation.

-k_squared

[/ QUOTE ]

I interpreted from his post that he had no idea what the FTOP was. Also his question was what exactly is it and not shall we discuss its depth and application to actual game play. If you wish to discuss it follows that we need to start with the proper definition. That's all I was trying to do. I also suggested he read a little further in the TOP to get a basis for understanding the FTOP.

I just think if he wanted more of a discussion he would've asked something specific about the FTOP of poker or perhaps how it pertains to actual play rather than a general WTF type of question. I could be wrong and I quite frequently am.