[RIDGE45]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason some of us read books and study the game is because we believe that the game is more complicated than "will he fold?" The question is "will he fold often enough to make this bet profitable?" which is a vastly different question. The first question requires some combination of being a mind reader or a home game champion who is a pompous ass. The second requires knowledge of game theory, pot odds, and bluffing frequency. So whatever your poison is, run with it.

[/ QUOTE ] FYP

Its two different schools of thought really. You can break the game of poker down into simply: What do I have? Does this beat my opponent? If not, if I bet, will he fold? While this may not be the most complete, or intellectual approach to the game, it none the less has merit as a "Poker Theory". And I'm sure with enough practice this simplitistic, or more "feeler" approach could be profitable. Its how most people start out anaylzing the game (once they get beyond the what do I have stage).

A player like Jennifer Harman does not use in depth concepts such as bluffing frequency. She has admitted herself that sometimes she bets merely because she knew the other player would fold.

Is the game more complicated than "will my opponent fold?" I guess that depends on your point of view. But, that is what makes poker so great. On the surface the game is so simple but it can be so complicated. I think the game is as simple or complex as you make it.

Although, I still don't know how anyone can be successful at poker without reading some kind of book on it, or being taught certain skills by someon else who is skilled.

Good discussion, has me thinking.

[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]RIDGE [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]