[StellarWind]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a little confused. I guess we're assuming that we can't tell anything from the cards we're dealt?

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct, you cannot predict who will flop TPTK based on your preflop cards. Assume you cannot see your hand preflop.

[ QUOTE ]
If we're not allowed to see our cards until after the flop, then it doesn't matter because this would be a complete coin toss every time.

[/ QUOTE ]
Correct. These are straight even bets on a 50-50 chance. They have zero EV. Bet and raise if you enjoy gambling.

[ QUOTE ]
The idea here is to keep the pot as small as possible at either 0 or 1 bets. In other words, we check or we call. This allows our "gambling" opponent to make the biggest mistake on the flop by peeling when he has the gutter.

[/ QUOTE ]
Suppose Villain bets preflop. You can call this bet or you can raise in which case assume Villain will call.

Thus the preflop pot can be 2 SB or 4 SB at your option. The preflop raise carries zero EV.

Now consider the postflop play. A gutshot should be folded on the flop irrespective of whether the pot is 2 SB or 4 SB. Hero will play the hand exactly the same postflop regardless of what he did preflop. For his own reasons Villain will also play the hand exactly the same postflop.

Since the postflop action will be identical in every respect, it follows that the preflop action cannot change the winner of the pot nor the amount of postflop bets won by the winner. We also noted above that the preflop raise has zero EV.

So why do you think it is more profitable not to raise preflop? If the bigger Sklansky mistake means you make more money, then where is the extra money coming from? It's not preflop and it's not postflop either.

There is a way out of this apparent paradox. The Fundamental Theorem is not wrong.