Being Results Orientated, and the FTOP

[RoyalSampler]

There would be if he didn't already hold two of the kings.

[Hood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

A good example is the blind Re-Steal Steal thread, I think comments by both durron597 and Erostratus are focused on the results (he had a flush draw) rather than the situation on the flop (you have nothing, he could have absolulely anything). [I mean not to single anyone out, I'm sure I do it too. That thread just encouraged me to write start this one].


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't going to reply to this thread because I mostly agree with what the other posters were saying, except you mentioned me being results oriented by name so I have to address that. I said I would fold on that flop, in that situation because I can't beat any pair, or any flush draw without an A or a Q, so what am I ahead of? I also said I would push preflop because the poster only has 10xBB. How is that results oriented?

[/ QUOTE ]

"It sounds like your read was good and you got your chips in with the best of it. What are you complaining about?"

As I tried to say in my initial post, I really didn't mean to point fingers at anyone, I just needed an example of what I was saying and that thread was the last I read. My appologies if it came across the wrong way.

[Hood]

[ QUOTE ]
There would be if he didn't already hold two of the kings.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes good point... as I say, I'm bad at examples [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Hood]

Thanks all for your replies in this thread.

I do disagree that it's simply a 'semantic' argument. I think my initial post was a little wishy-woshy. Basically I think my argument is made up of two points:

a) FTOP encourages people to be results-orientated when analysing their play.
b) It's fundementally incorrect to state you lose when you don't play like you would if you saw your opponents cards.

If we take the FTOP point of view, the theoretical "correct" play is not only to know the cards your opponents have, but also to know what cards are coming and to know how your players are going to act. If you knew these 3 things, you could make the correct play. However poker is a game of impartial information:

1) You don't know what cards your opponents have,
2) You don't know what cards are coming, and
3) You don't know how your opponents will act.

Because you'll never "know" any of these things, the "correct" play is to assign odds to each variable, then make the highest EV play based on those odds. In my poor AK example - even though he shows AA, it may still be correct to call all-in because before you saw AA, his hand is a probability distribution* and represents more than one value.

Similarly, how your opponent will act and what cards are coming are probabilities until they take a "state". If there's an 80% chance your opponent will bluff if you check to them and you want to induce a bluff, you check to them. If then check behind you, was it incorrect to check in the first place? No, not if your 80% assumption was correct. Ok so this is pretty basic gambling stuff.

Yet the FTOP focuses on one of these points and states that that is the theoretical best play is when you "know" what cards your opponents have. If we're doing theoretical, it should include points 2 and 3. But if we're doing practical (which I'm suggesting), then the statement is just wrong - the correct play is to have the correct probability distribution* for the players cards.


*I may be forgetting my stats and using the wrong term here

[PrayingMantis]

Good post.

I think we can see FTOP as a kind of a non-realistic ideal, which we should try to get closer to. What I mean, is that while you'll rarely know your opponents' EXACT cards, your ability to make a good read, is, in a sense, narrowing their range of hands more and more. Idealy, you'll know what they have. The better you are, the more accurate you'll be in putting your opponents on hands, and so - the more possible it will be for you to make THEM make the mistakes.

As to the probabilies of the cards to come: I don't agree with you, as the FTOP deals with this aspect in its way. Wrong or right moves are based on the *probabilites* of the cards to come, not on the cards themselves, so you don't need to know the exact cards.

However, your point in regard to your opponents' behaviour is very much true, in my opinion, and is the biggest flaw in FTOP. Knowing your opponents' cards is not enough, certainly not in tournament poker. In order to make the "optimal" move you have to know *exatly* how they will play in every situation and street to come, and you want to know the same thing about *any other* player at the table or tournament (even if they do not participate in the specific hand) for you to make the optimal decision. There are many reasons for this.

However, even your opponent does not really know how often, exacly, will he fold to your push on the turn, for instance. Nobody knows, even if your opponent's cards are exposed. These are never exact numbers, only assesments, reads, guesstimations, psychology. And in this sense, FTOP, as stated, is completely irrelevant, and marginally wrong.

[Hood]

Thanks for the response.

[ QUOTE ]
As to the probabilies of the cards to come: I don't agree with you, as the FTOP deals with this aspect in its way. Wrong or right moves are based on the *probabilites* of the cards to come, not on the cards themselves, so you don't need to know the exact cards.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. In the same way, knowing what your opponent holds (and how they will act) is also based on the probabilities, not the actual cards (or actions). I just don't see a point in diffrentiating between them. All 3 factors can never be known exactly, it's based on probabilities.

However good your read, you can never be 100% on your opponents cards. To take another (poor theoretical) example, if you're 99% sure if your opponent is bluffing, yet the pot is offering you 1/100 odds, then the correct play may be to fold.

[PrayingMantis]

[ QUOTE ]
That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. In the same way, knowing what your opponent holds (and how they will act) is also based on the probabilities, not the actual cards (or actions). I just don't see a point in diffrentiating between them. All 3 factors can never be known exactly, it's based on probabilities.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll use your 3 factors to explain what I meant. If you know your opponent's cards, AND exactly how he will react in any situations, you can play an optimal game (at least in regard to ring), without knowing the "cards to come" factor. This is a matter of understanding what is "optimal" in regard to gambling and game theory.

Optimal, in this sense, means getting the BEST of it, every time, because you know the EXACT *probablity* of any card to come. You dont miss any information for making the best decision, in a LONG-TERM perspective, and with keeping in mind that we are GAMBLING.

And from another perspective: the meaning of the probability of the cards to come is not the same as the meaning of the probability your opponent is holding a specific hand, or will act in a certain way. The two last factors are always debatable, and based on reads, psycology, history, etc, and that's why narrowing them into a "range" (of cards and behaviours) will always be the *best* you can do, and all moves should be judged upon our ability to assess these "ranges" and "behaviours", and not upon what our opponent actually HAD or DID (EXACTLY). In this sense, I completely agree with your points. And that's why poker is *so* complicated.

[Hood]

Yes that makes a lot of sense, thanks for clarifying, I agree completely. Thanks, an interesting discussion.