TOP: Fundamental Theorem discussion.

[Pokey]

OK, chapters 1-4 had one critically important concept that we really SHOULD discuss in detail: the Fundamental Theorem of Poker. To recap: on page 17 Sklansky 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 ]
This theorem holds true if we may one critically important extra assumption: given all information revealed, people would play in mathematically optimal ways. I'm sure that at Sklansky's tables that's true; at MY tables, I'd be highly surprised if it turned out to be correct.

Look at a blackjack table some time. See the dealer showing a king. Watch the guy with 15 stay because "I know I'll bust if I take a card." Watch the folks split tens, take insurance or even-money blackjacks when dealer is showing an ace, hit (not double) when they have 11 and dealer shows a 6, etc., and you'll quickly realize that common folks simply do NOT always make the mathematically correct choices.

The pot is built up to $50 with two players left. The last one pushes all in for his last $5 and flips up AA unimproved. I'll bet that many nits would fold their T9o on a board of K92r because "he's got me beaten."

The pot is $15. One player pushes all-in on the flop for his last $60 and flips up JJ for a set. I'll bet that many maniacs would call with an OESD because "I won't let him muscle me off my draw."

Encouraging mistakes is definitely a good thing, but to say that any time our opponents know our cards AUTOMATICALLY makes their moves optimal seems erroneous at the small-stakes tables.