Being Results Orientated, and the FTOP

[Hood]

(this is probably not best suited in the SNG forum... but I've only posted in this one and I'm comfortable here [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img])

I've been thinking a lot lately about the replies in these forums that are results-orientated, and how damaging this can be. This is due usually to people posting their results along with their hand histories. But regardless, I still see responders going out of their way to base their comments on the results. For example, posts like: "Well you got it all in with the best hand, you can't ask for more than that."

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].

I also read this post by Phill S:

[ QUOTE ]
ok, first off, he showed QQ, therefor youd have pushed off the third guy and split. so by definition you made the wrong play. as according to the fundamental theory of poker.

must remember to re-read the big yellow bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

In context, I think this post is saying "well he showed QQ, and if you had known that you would have played it differently. Hence, according to FTOP, the play was wrong".

If I understand correctly, that just screams of being results-orientated. But is this interpreting Sklansky wrong? As the FTOP states:

[ QUOTE ]
Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, ...[the converse]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is wrong.

I'm not good at hypothetical examples, so go with me on this. Lets say you've got KK PF and someone pushes on you. Now lets say that you know he would only make this move with AA or AK. If this was the case then it would be correct to call because there's a greater chance he holds AK. I'm confident that (presuming your read was right) this is the correct play. So you call and they flip over AA. Was your play then incorrect? No. It was still correct to call. If the same thing happens in the next hand, is it still correct to call? Yes, it is. But FTOP states that it was the wrong play (or the opponents "gains") because you didn't play like you knew their cards. The FTOP seems to ignore the fact that you put your opponent on a range of hands, and, based on the odds of holding those hands you make a +EV decision.

Or am I (and other posters) interpretting fsop incorrectly? or am I just talking rubbish?