[dd323]

I've been reading a lot of discussion in this thread talking about how Slansky's FTOP is "overrated", "incomplete", etc.

I really think people are missing how important this theorem is at any level of play. I think in the long run (not just one hand), this theorem doesn not say that bluffing is incorrect, and in fact it provides a key justification for bluffing, semi-bluffing, etc.

I think people who don't understand the primary purpose of bluffing should especially study this theorem. The primary purpose of bluffing is not to be +EV in that particular had (although it is possible to be +EV overall). In fact if you never get picked off while bluffing you are doing at an improper frequency, because the primary purpose of bluffing is to make your opponents play incorrectly on future hands. The secondary purpose is to pad your win rate a little bit. I would argue, that if bluffing is a major source of our income, then you are not bluffing enough to make your optimal win rate (unless you never want to move past 25NL).

At low limits, it describes why against a weak player, it is worth it to call with almost any two cards if you are sure they have a big pocket pair and the stacks are deep enough. You know what they have, but they have no idea what you have, and the implied odds are such (because they are bad SS players) that you can profitably call.

I also find it funny that the first time I've seen this part of TOP dismissed so easily is on the SSNL board.