[Siegmund]

[ QUOTE ]

bobman:

I think in general, the FT sweeps wider than the NE formula. Every Nash mistake leads to FT mistakes, but not every FT mistake is indicative of a Nash mistake.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]

ianlippert:


I mean obviously if I knew what my opponents had I wouldn't make 'mistakes', but poker is a game of incomplete information. There isnt a single player that doesnt break the FTOP on a regular basis.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. An FTOP-mistake is not always a technically wrong play. But it is still, perhaps, interesting to examine a hand and see which player made more FTOP-mistakes; playing to minimize one's number of FTOP-mistakes amounts to the same thing as playing to make the correct play as often as you can.

I asked about the original vs. alternative statements because it's fairly easy to analyze what would have happened had everyone been able to see everyone else's cards. (If you have a complete hand record, that is.) But ToP, in the section on bluffing, talks a great deal about inducing your opponent to make mistakes -- yet avoids defining a bluff as "deliberately making a FTOP-mistake in hopes of inducing a larger one from your opponent." Under the alternative statement, all bluffs are indeed mistakes; under the original statement, the door seems to be left open for some bluffs to not be FTOP-mistakes (if you think your opponent is likely to fold because of the range of hands you have represented, you might bluff even if you could see your opponent had you beaten.)

My mind actually likes the idea of analyzing all bluffs as deliberate FTOP-mistakes in hopes of inducing larger ones in return. My main reason in asking about the phrasing, was to see whether this idea seemed to others to be intended in the original FTOP.