[Mercman572]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the whole theorm is a over-rated. It certainly isn't what I'd call fundamental. Talking about inducing a 'mistake' from an opponent, when he doesn't know your cards and you don't know his, is a bit silly.

[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> PLEASE everyone, argue the theory, not the assumptions, it's way more productive. Don't play semantics. </font>

[ QUOTE ]

Poker comes down to putting people on a range of hands and playing optimally from there. You need to make correct estimates of the relative probability of your opponents' holding(s) and their likely reactions to your possible actions. Then you select the action that gives you the highest EV. That's fundamental.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is applying the fundamental theorem of poker to play. Good. First part of fulfilling the FTOP is to put him on a good range of hands, that's the best you can do to seeing his cards. Your own skill and experience, and the opponent's plays/ability will cause this to vary.

From there you decide your play.


I said we need to discuss as it applies to us, part of that means that the majority of the time we won't have to induce a player to make a mistake. You must decide how closely the opponent can play as if your cards were shown given a certain action. That's the other part of it.

The Fundamental Theorem is indeed fundamental, it is not simple. It is not the introductory theorem. It's incredibly complex and far reaching.