Hypothetical question that will blow your mind.

Newsflash: You don't need the NUTS to win a hand, Sherlock! Especially against 1 or 2 opponents!
Especially in NL, whence you can protect your hand!

You are saying you'd rather see your opponents hands PF in NL? OK, picture this...

You hold AA and your opponent holds KK... isn't he still going to win like 20% of the time? You have no idea what the flop will be.

How would you play this? Build the pot PF, on the flop, and on the turn? Great...and he calls down... and here comes the rivercard! Voila! It's a King! Congratulations, you've pumped the pot and lost to lady luck!

Getting dealt 34 and knowing the flop will be AQ25A ahead of time is far more valuable. (Note, you dont have the nuts here, but you will crush 1 or 2 opponents almost every time)

[SocialWelfareIV]

[ QUOTE ]
Newsflash: You don't need the NUTS to win a hand, Sherlock! Especially against 1 or 2 opponents!
Especially in NL, whence you can protect your hand!

You are saying you'd rather see your opponents hands PF in NL? OK, picture this...

You hold AA and your opponent holds KK... isn't he still going to win like 20% of the time? You have no idea what the flop will be.

How would you play this? Build the pot PF, on the flop, and on the turn? Great...and he calls down... and here comes the rivercard! Voila! It's a King! Congratulations, you've pumped the pot and lost to lady luck!

Getting dealt 34 and knowing the flop will be AQ25A ahead of time is far more valuable. (Note, you dont have the nuts here, but you will crush 1 or 2 opponents almost every time)

[/ QUOTE ]

There is obviously no convincing you otherwise, but consider this:


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

[/ QUOTE ]

David Sklanksy, The Theory of Poker, pp 17-18.

K Steel, I think SocialWelfare is referring to the [greater in number] times where you have a marginal hand and are able to react to your opponent to push a small edge. If you have KQ spades and the board will come Jh-2h-3c Qh Tc, what can you expect your opponents to do on each street? Your top pair may be good, or it may be bad. You may get a lot of pressure on the flop, but is it a flush draw that you know will hit, or AJ that you know will lose? Or is it JT that will fold on the turn, or is it JT that will call on the turn and beat you on the river? It's very easy to see where you stand in relation to the board, but it is much better to know where you stand in relation to your opponents.

The board - on the internet.
The players hands - B&M.
This decision is purely dictated by number of hands you can play at once. Playing hands that win most of the time or winning most of the time from every hand.

[Matt R.]

I can't believe so many people are voting that they'd rather see everyone else's hand. Think of all the money you would make in pots where you are BEHIND, yet you know for a fact that by the river you will win the (huge) pot.

I think the answer is obviously to know what the final board will be. You can play every single hand that you know will hit big... 72o, 32o, any 2 suited cards, as long as you know you'll make 2 pair or better by the river. You can STILL make your reads and figure out if your 2 pair is good, but there is no way you can ever know that your offsuit trash will turn into a full house by the river (if you choose to see everyone else's hand). Basically, you can still know in part what people are holding by their betting and/or their tells, but there is clearly no way to ever know what the final board will be. Knowing the final board is a way bigger advantage in my opinion.

[Matt R.]

But you're not 'only knowing the next card'. You're knowing what ALL the cards will be the second you see your hand.

Everyone keeps arguing that the only advantage to seeing the board is to nut peddle. This is way off... you can play any hand you want to that you know (with 100% certainty I might add) will make a good hand by the river. If you know your 32o will make 2 pair on a non-paired board by the river, go ahead and jam it vs. the guy with AA. You will be making money on every street, you're no longer confined to waiting around to see if you will make your hand -- you will always know immediately. Sure, your 2 pair may not always be good, but that's where hand reading comes in. All the extra money you make by being able to predict with certainty what the final board will be before you even see the cards far outweighs any few bets you lose by misreading someone.

Not really singling your post out btw, it just happened to be the last one I read. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Matt R.]

The Fundamental Theorem is assuming poker is still based on probabilities. This is no longer the case once you can know with 100% certainty what cards will come out. Your correct cases where you are drawing with proper odds will be clearly incorrect when you ALREADY KNOW what the cards will be that come out. The 'theorem' changes drastically when you alter the game in this way.

[Matt R.]

Sklansky's 'theorem' is dealing with probabilities -- if your opponent can see your cards and makes the correct decision based on the probability certain cards will come out, he has a positive expectation so he will win money on average, and vice versa if he plays it incorrectly. However, once YOU know the ENTIRE BOARD with 100% certainty before the flop is even dealt, you completely eliminate your need to rely on probabilities. Sklansky's theorem clearly would not apply if you choose to see the final board. A modified version sure, but definitely not the one from theory of poker.

[Matt R.]

What happens when your opponent starts to read you and knows when you're bluffing him off his 'weak' (but better) hand every time and starts to call? You can't force your opponent to fold their marginal or drawing hands every time. You're still going to have to have the best hand by the river sometimes -- and if you choose to know the final board, you will know this with certainty sometimes, and the times you DON'T you will still have a very good idea.

What about if you could see the board only through the turn vs. knowing one of each of your opponent's hole cards? What if it's only through the flop?