[intheflatfield]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok my fault. My opinion is that to some degree, this discussion is more over semantics. Some one said David was trying to be "sciency". The definition of theorem is "an idea that has been proven to be true or assumed to be demonstrable". Mathematics has a slightly different defintion but essentially the same. The FTOP is the rock on which all the rest of good poker play is built. All other things are derived from it. If I know your hand, the FTOP says if I played it differently when not knowing your hand, then I lose money. But the question is, what is the optimal play when I know your hand? If I know you are a LAG who will bet into me street after street with marginal hands but will usually fold if I raise, when I know your cards, is my optimal play to raise when I am ahead or is it to call down? Of course it is to call down. So my mistake if I didnt know your cards would be if I raised you! But against a different player with the exact same cards, it could be completely reversed. The FTOP says nothing about how you should play cards, only that you lose money when you play differently than you would if you knew their cards

[/ QUOTE ]

I can understand what your saying. I think a lot of the trouble comes in the different ways people define the term "win" and "lose" and "mistake" as it applies to the theorem. For instance, a "mistake" may occur when someone plays a hand correctly based on his read, re the KK v AA scenario. The "mistake" is not a description of an "incorrect" play neccessarily, just that If you would have been able see the AA in the opponents hand, you would have played it differntly.

Also take in mind the caliber of player involved. For instance if an experienced pro, by a certain tell can put someone on an exact hand, or to take it even further, suppose he has x-ray vision and can see the opponents cards. He would be able incorporate past play in similar circumstances, the present situation at table (loose, tight) any other variables in which a knowledgable player would apply to their reasoning, and make his play based on that information. If he would play that hand differently, with the same given variables stipulated if he couldn't see the cards then he loses according to the theorom, even thought that play might be "correct" simply in terms of +/- EV.

If a novice player can see those same cards, and applys whatever misconceptions or errors he is prone to make. It is possible for him to make an eggregious error in judgement, which normally would be considered a "mistake" and still accidentally make the optimal play, making this play "correct" in a theoretical sense.

In effect people are strictly applying their own definition of a "mistake" as opposed to understanding that it has different meanings in it's particular appliction.