Fundamental Theorem of Poker

[andyfox]

The FTOP states that every time you play your hand in a manner different than you would had you seen your opponent's cards, your opponent gains.

But what about if you would have played it wrong?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that any time you play your hand in a manner different than would have made you the most money, your opponent gains?

[Zeno]

The examples following the FTOP help claify the FTOP, as stated by Mr. Sklansky. The last portion of the above sentence is the most important.

-Zeno

[eastbay]

[ QUOTE ]
The FTOP states that every time you play your hand in a manner different than you would had you seen your opponent's cards, your opponent gains.

But what about if you would have played it wrong?

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that any time you play your hand in a manner different than would have made you the most money, your opponent gains?

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically, don't think too hard about it. You can't get anything from it that you wouldn't get by "common sense."

eastbay's redux: "Try to read your opponents hands and act accordingly."

[Cyrus]

"The FTOP states that every time you play your hand in a manner different than you would had you seen your opponent's cards, your opponent gains.

But what about if you would have played it wrong?"

It is assumed that, if you get to see your opponent's (or opponents') hand(s), you would play optimally.

If you were to see that an opponent is holding AA and you have AKs in the BB, you would want to see the flop only for free, but this is an easy example. It is assumed that, knowing the others' cards, you're extracting max EV from the round.

--Cyrus

PS : I don't think EV/var comes into consideration in limit games. For NL games, it is always vital to take into acount one's BR, no matter how great one's advantage is over the table. (This note is strictly theoretical, of course. Except for you cheaters out there!)

PPS : For the very similar concept of hole-card play in 21, you might be interested to check out Grosjean's opus, if you can. While the situation hypothesized by FTOP is a theoretical construct intented to illuminate Sklansky's argument, the 21 play is very real.

[stripsqueez]

the FTOP is not an answer but an explanation of how to derive the answer

to answer your second statement in a practical setting you are applying reasoning that gains its validity from the FTOP

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[Gus Contos]

This is basically the same point raised by SmoothB a couple of years ago. Go to this archive page http://www.twoplustwo.com/digests/genpokarch_apr01_main.html
and look for a thread titled "Tearing Down the Fundamental Theorem of Poker". The highlight is Tommy Angelo's gem of a reply.

GC

[andyfox]

"The highlight is Tommy Angelo's gem of a reply."

What else is new?

[Gamblor]

It's nice to see you also play poker.

[BillC]

I asked a game theorist friend of mine about the fun thm
of poker ane he said it is not properly formulated as a
theorem, nor is there a proof. Actually he said it was a joke. It can be stated so that
it is a triviality (obvious tautology) but then it si not much of a theorem, and otherwise it is
wanting. Also: among other "fundamental theorems", such as the fundamental thm of algebra, and the fundamental theorem
of Hopf modules, why is this ur-theorem the fun one?

He is irked by the lack of rigor in a lot of poker theory. You are supposed to prove, give data for and adequatly formulate your assertions (or give references and attributions).

[Tommy Angelo]

"Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that any time you play your hand in a manner different than would have made you the most money, your opponent gains?"

Yes. More accurate, and therefore even more duh.

[Cyrus]

I wrote "It is assumed that, if you get to see your opponent's (or opponents') hand(s), you would play optimally."

This is not correct.

Instead, it is assumed that, if you were to see your opponent(s)' hand(s), you would play better than if you hadn't.

Just better. Not necessarily optimally.