[Ralle]

> It may even be trivial to prove in a more serious way, but I've never
> seen a poker idea solved in such a way and seriously doubt it's value.

The point is that if you are going to use the word theorem, then there
should be a proof. Whether or not a proof would be interesting or useful
for the application is beside the point. It's a matter of terminology.

If you have an idea but no proof, then it's easy to state the idea, and simply
avoid calling it a theorem.