To start the fundamental theorem says
[ QUOTE ]
Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. COnversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose.
[/ QUOTE ]
Read page 25 of TOP about "Mistakes" According to The Fundamental Theorem of Poker:
[ QUOTE ]
If I have a royal flush and someone has a king-high straight flush, that player is making a mistake to call me. But a player surely cannot be accused of playing badly by calling or, as is much more likely, raising with a king-high straight flush. Since he doesn't know what I have, he is making a mistake in a different sense of of the word.
[/ QUOTE ]
So yes, David agrees with calling the push:
[ QUOTE ]
KK is right to call a push vs AA on an AKx flop. Saying it's a bad call (and according to FTOP it is) is results-based thinking.
[/ QUOTE ]
And on page 232 of chapter 22: Reading hands
[ QUOTE ]
Reading hands well is a powerfull poker weapon because it allows you to play correctly more often, according to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker. The better you read your opponents' hands, the less likely you are to play to play your hand differently from the way you would play it if you could actually see what your opponent had.
[/ QUOTE ]
This agrees with:
[ QUOTE ]
But you don't know he has AA and you can never know for sure. It is a good call in the sense, that out of the range of hands he might have, you are ahead.
[/ QUOTE ]
On page 25 David says:
[ QUOTE ]
According to to the FToP, you play winning poker by by playing as closely as possible to the way you would play if you could see all your opponent's cards; and you try to make your opponents play as far away from this Utopian level as possible. The first goal is accomplished mainly by
reading hands and players accurately, because the closer you can come to figuring out someone else's hand, the fewer Fundamental Theorem mistakes you will make,
[/ QUOTE ]
This together with the quote from page 232 about reading hands, almost agrees with:
[ QUOTE ]
You need to consider ranges of hands and ranges of possible reactions to play optimal poker.
[/ QUOTE ]
Almost since DS states that playing optimal poker is Utopian, you can only play near optimal.
And above quotes from TOP agree with:
[ QUOTE ]
The starting point to optimal play is correctly putting your opponent on a range of hands. From there you chose the course of action that maximizes your EV. I'd bet that's what you try to do when you play.
[/ QUOTE ]
and
[ QUOTE ]
If I were writing something I called the FTOP, I'd include hand ranges and EV.
[/ QUOTE ]
And then again, it is fundamental, thus basic and needs to be extended. Hence a 301 page book called the Theory of Poker. (The extension of the FToP)
[ QUOTE ]
By contrast, I find the FTOP an attempt to state in pseudo-mathematical terms what poker is about.
[/ QUOTE ]
Funny. Somehow I have the feeling that either:
<ul type="square"> [*]You haven't read Theory of Poker [*]You do not fully understand it.[/list]
That's my 0.02 Sklansky Buck.