[Mercman572]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

I was shocked as well..

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't. The FTOP is in fact one of the most over reaching concepts of poker. It really takes thousands upon thousands of hands, rereading TOP and rethinking your understanding of poker to TRULY appreciate it.

The theory need not be taken literally, and it doesn't have to be applied in a vaccuum. It is very much like economic theory (which I've been chin deep in lately) in that the theory is based on impossible assumptions. For economics its assuming perfect information of a product and rational utility maximizing consumers. In the FTOP it is playing as if you could see the other players cards.

That doesn't mean that bluffing is incorrect when you know you're beat. I've had opponents know that I was TAG, and know that I had a strong overpair that couldn't stand up to a reraise. When they do that they are playing as they should if they could see my cards but I can't see theirs.

Borrowing from statistic, the FTOP is a model for ideal play. As a rule, all models are inaccurate. Continuing on that rule, some models are useful. The FTOP is one of these models. Although its assumption is unrealistic, it applies to almost all situations even when the initial assumption doesn't apply.

Not understanding this leads to thoughts like this:

[ QUOTE ]

Maybe my interpretation of TFTOP is too narrow. I think bluffing - if done correctly - is +EV. But the TFTOP says you should play as if you could see your opponents cards. Putting money in the pot when you're behind is not the way to win if you read TFTOP literally. That's why I think it's incomplete.

[/ QUOTE ]

It seems this discussion is being helpful to many people. Good to see.