Fundamental Theorem of Poker Question.

[RocketManJames]

Hi Everyone,

I am in the middle of reading ToP. And I've read a bit on this forum regarding the FTP.

The theorem says basically, that each time you do something that you would do if you saw your opponents cards and each your opponent does something differently than he would had he seen your cards, you are gaining.

But how does this theorem fit with bluffing.

Example:

You have 56o and act 2nd. Your opponent has 96 and acts first. The board shows: 278AK. Your opponent bets out... so this is good... if he saw your cards, he should certainly bet, since he's got the better hand. But, if he bets out, and you *knew* his cards, you'd probably raise knowing that he couldn't call you. But, if he could see your cards, he'd re-raise you, obviously, since he'd win. But, he can't see your cards, so he'd probably throw away. But, what if you couldn't see his cards, you would throw away... so how does this all work out? Sorry if this example is confusing, but I'm really confused after thinking about this type of situation with respect to what FTP says.

Thoughts?

-RMJ

[Sal Allegra]

<font color="blue"> </font color> Since you are dealing with incomplete information you are just approximating your chances of acting in unison with the fundamental theory through your theory of reading hands, so since he is on a semibluff, you assess if he's the type of player who would drop his semibluff, if you cut down his odds with your own semibluff raise

[Nottom]

If everyone could see each others hand, then obviously there can be know bluffing. The point of bluffing as it relates to the FToP is that you give your opponent an opportunity to make a mistake when you bluff since if he knew what you had he would raise or call everytime.

[Bama Boy]

Hi RocketmanJames,

I think your mistake is that you are interpreting both you and your opponent seeing what each has at the same time. Obviously if all cards were played face up, then FTOP would have to apply only in the strictest sense, and not include bluffing.

How the FTOP applies to bluffing is this:

If you hold 56os and know your opponent holds 96o (you saw the cards reflect off the sunglasses he was wearing), then you could bet if you suspected it to be a +EV play. That is, your opponent would fold enough times to make this play profitable long term. How many times depends on size of the pot along with how likely your opponent is to fold to your bet.

Hope this little bit starts to help you. Theory of Poker will cover all you are asking if you keep reading it!

[J.R.]

The FTOP posits that the optimum strategy arises when you can see your opponent's cards and play accordingly. The FTOP does not apply to your example because each player can see the other's hand.

The asymmetry of information is the heart of poker, as without it your're just doing math. You understand the FTOP and are over-thinking its application and weight.

[DiamondDave]

I'll gladly accept correction if I'm wrong about any of the following. With that aside, here's my take:

From the perspective of someone who can see everyone's cards, there is someone who has the "best hand". This isn't always the highest ranking hand at the moment, but rather the one that has the highest probability of being best when all the cards are out. (AK is "better than" 22 in limit hold'em at a full table, even though it is currently both lower-ranking and a heads-up underdog).

The person who has the "best hand" should (almost always) bet. If the pot + anticipated future action is large enough relative to the best hand's bet + any anticipated raises, players with other holdings ("drawing hands") are getting proper odds to call. If they are not, they should fold.

The above is a gross oversimplification. The theorem isn't telling you that you can't win if you are unable to take an omniscient perspective at the table (although reading hands is really a important skill that I'm working to obtain). The theorem is telling you that you need to get your opponents to make mistakes. Sometimes you bet your hand (and they call when they shouldn't). Sometimes you misrepresent your holding and get action with a monster (they call or raise when they shouldn't) or win the pot by bluffing (they fold when they shouldn't).

There are many instances in which the "best hand" should check and hands other than the "best hand" should bet or even raise.

Suppose you hold red kings and the flop is KK9 with two spades. If you could see your opponent's A /forums/images/icons/spade.gif Q /forums/images/icons/spade.gif and knew that he'd call your bet on the turn if an ace or another spade fell, you should check. You gain if he calls your turn bet (because he wouldn't do it if he could see your quads). Conversely, you lose (he gains) if he folds (which is what he'd do if he could see your hand).

There are also times when someone holding a "drawing hand" should raise. Consider a seven-card stud game with big huge giant antes. You can see your opponent's pocket aces, and you only have kings. You might still want to raise in order to offer worse odds to the rest of the people at the table. (The pot is offering you sufficient odds to play the hand anyway. You just "investing" two small bets - your raise and the reraise you know is coming - to increase your probability of winning from x to x+y. The size of the pot makes this play proper here.)

[Nottom]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Suppose you hold red kings and the flop is KK9 with two spades. If you could see your opponent's A Q and knew that he'd call your bet on the turn if an ace or another spade fell, you should check.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why on earth would you check if you KNEW your opponent had the flush draw? Thats about the only hand thats gonna pay you off here short of 99.