|
|
#11
10-06-2004, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Uhh
Sorry, all of you are wrong. Even if god knows his hand is gonna be beat, he should play hands if he thinks he can scare the winning hand out.
So... not only does god play the hands that will win, he should play hands that he thinks he can make the opponent lose. That is the most profitable poker... And hey.. doesn't that come under deception? :P 
|
|
#12
10-06-2004, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker
The FTOP is self proving. Describe a poker situation where, on one specific round of action, acting in such a way that differs from the course of action one would take if one had 100% information benefits a player. I think several people have problems with what action the FToP sometimes dictates, but it is always true.
peace john nickle
|
|
#13
10-06-2004, 04:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, after an hour or two, God wouldn't be playing very profitable poker, because everytime he played a hand everyone else would fold. How's he going to make money this way? [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps you've heard of blinds/antes.
|
|
#14
10-06-2004, 04:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker
[ QUOTE ]
The FTOP is self proving. Describe a poker situation where, on one specific round of action, acting in such a way that differs from the course of action one would take if one had 100% information benefits a player. I think several people have problems with what action the FToP sometimes dictates, but it is always true. peace john nickle [/ QUOTE ] I agree. FTOP is tautological. And in the sense that we NEVER have perfect information, it isn't really all that helpful either.
|
|
#15
10-06-2004, 05:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker
[ QUOTE ]
FTOP is tautological. And in the sense that we NEVER have perfect information, it isn't really all that helpful either. [/ QUOTE ] It's not tautological. Remember, the "T" stands for "Theorem."
|
|
#16
10-07-2004, 01:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker
[ QUOTE ]
The FTOP is self proving. Describe a poker situation where, on one specific round of action, acting in such a way that differs from the course of action one would take if one had 100% information benefits a player. I think several people have problems with what action the FToP sometimes dictates, but it is always true. peace john nickle [/ QUOTE ] How does Morton's Theorem factor into this? Multi-way, does not the fact that players with incorrect draws cost you money when they call your bets because part of their calls end up in the stacks of other players drawing against you? Perhaps I just misunderstand the theorem however. ---Leavenfish
|
|
#17
10-07-2004, 01:46 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker
First, for more info on morton's theorum, check this out.
Also, the FTOP applies best to heads up situations. This does not, however, mean that you shouldnt be betting your big hands. All it is saying is that your expectation is reduced. You are still making money by someone calling incorrectly, just not 100% of what is going in the pot. IN essence, using the example from the link, both you AND the flush draw are profiting from the mistake, but it is usually to your detriment, in that you arent winning *as much* as you would have. However, this in no way disproves the FTOP, and i think really reinforces all the ways it can be applied. A great example is the technique of raising on the turn which has recently become so popular. You are waiting until you have better odds and are banking a larger share of each bet that goes into the pot. And since there are more bets going into the middle, you are making a larger amount of money. peace john nickle
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
