what is the fundamental theorem of poker?

[MikeR]

From The Theory of Poker, by David Sklansky. ©1987, 1989, 1992, 1994 by David Sklansky, (excerpt from book section)
[ QUOTE ]
There are some amateur poker players who find something reprehensible about check raising. They find it devious and deceitful and con sider people who use it to be less than well-bred. Well, check raising is devious and it is deceitful, but being devious and deceitful is precisely what one wants to be in a poker game, as is implied by the Fundamental Theorem of Poker.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is the Fundamental Theorem of Poker?

[jojobinks]

turn to the page 17 of TOP. there, you will find it.

[bobbyi]

"Let me give you a topic: The fundamental theorem is neither fundamental nor a theorem. Discuss amongst yourselves."
-Abdul Jalib

[irongarden]

[ QUOTE ]
What is the Fundamental Theorem of Poker?

[/ QUOTE ]

IIRC, Sklansky defines the Fundamental Theorm of Poker as something to the effect of "When your opponents play differently than if they knew what you were holding, you gain. When you play your cards differently from the way you'd play them if you knew what your opponents were holding, you lose".

[Mayhap]

It's 90% fun and 10% mental.
/M

[The-Matador]

Whoever has the best cards wins.

[k_squared]

[ QUOTE ]
"Let me give you a topic: The fundamental theorem is neither fundamental nor a theorem. Discuss amongst yourselves."
-Abdul Jalib

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do you feel this way? Is there a previous post you have discussed this in? If so it would be a much larger help to be pointed in that direction rather than simply being told it is neither 'fundamental' nor a 'theorem.'

Someone is asking a question... so if we are going to answer it lets do our best to do so rather than simply posting an utterly unprovacative and unhelpful comment given the context of the previous post. If you had perhaps first explained what you felt the Fundamental Theorem was, and then way it is not fundamental or a theorem that would in fact provide a useful foil for deepening our ability to play poker.

I personally think the FTOP provides a great way to analyze your decision making process using an objective criteria. I understand it as saying essentially that everytime you play your cards exactly as you would if you knew exactly what your opponents held you gain. Also conversley, every time you get your opponents to play in such a way that they would have done something differently had they known your cards you gain.

-k_squared

[SheridanCat]

Context for Abdul Jalib quote

Discuss.

T

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
so if we are going to answer it lets do our best to do so

[/ QUOTE ]
The guy says that he already owns Theory of Poker and jojobinks pointed him to the exact page where the "theorem" is explained. I don't what you are expecting us to do beyond that. Trying to ineptly paraphrase the chapter for him when he already owns it would be utterly unproductive.

[ QUOTE ]
rather than simply posting an utterly unprovacative and unhelpful comment given the context of the previous post.

[/ QUOTE ]
You must learn to recognize the difference between that which is unprovocative and that by which you refuse to be provoked.

[bobbyi]

[ QUOTE ]
Context for Abdul Jalib quote

Discuss.

[/ QUOTE ]
That thread is utterly brillant. I don't see how any serious player could not love a thread about a hand between Mason and Abdul featuring comments by the two of them as well as Sklansky, Rick Nebiolo, John Feeney, Fossilman... When Sklanksy says that a hand "is worth a major essay if not a thesis", it generally pays to spend some time with it.