TOP: Fundamental Theorem discussion.

[cbloom]

[ 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 ]

You are not understanding it correctly. If your opponent has a hand they will fold which is better than yours, clearly bluffing is correct under the FTOP. Knowing exactly what hands they'll fold and what size of bets is part of knowing your opponent's psychology. Obviously if you bluff into the nuts, you are making a "mistake" according to FTOP because you would never do that if you could see their cards.

This also provides an example of what I've been trying to talk about Re: opponent psychology in the FTOP. Say they hold a very weak hand which they should fold if you bluff, and you know that's what they have. You (correctly) bluff and they (incorrectly) call, and you lose the hand. This is a -EV move, but did you make a mistake? According to the strict or game-theory version of FTOP you did not, but if you including opponent's actions in the FTOP this is a mistake.

Now, the idea of intentionally making a mistake in one hand to set up future hands is a whole other topic which is outside the scope of the FTOP. It would still be a "mistake" in the original hand because it was not the maximum +EV play for that hand, though it may be beneficial in the long run.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
It would still be a "mistake" in the original hand because it was not the maximum +EV play for that hand, though it may be beneficial in the long run.

[/ QUOTE ]

That makes no sense. The EV of folding is 0. If you bluff correctly, then you make money over the long, and thus is the maximum EV play.

[cbloom]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now, the idea of intentionally making a mistake in one hand to set up future hands is a whole other topic which is outside the scope of the FTOP. It would still be a "mistake" in the original hand because it was not the maximum +EV play for that hand, though it may be beneficial in the long run.


[/ QUOTE ]

That makes no sense. The EV of folding is 0. If you bluff correctly, then you make money over the long, and thus is the maximum EV play.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not talking about the simple bluffing situation in the last paragraph, that's why I said it's a whole other topic. A previous poster brought up the idea of making a play which is -EV in one hand but is a long term +EV move because of the set up value. That might be something like pushing a semibluff when you know it's slightly -EV (in that hand), but you know will set you up for increased value in the future. It's open to intepretation what the FTOP thinks of a play like that.

[bacats32]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok if you know his cards and your cards how can you play incorrectly? What mistake could you make? If you know he has AA it doesn't matter how he bets, you will be able to calculate the correct play.

[/ QUOTE ]

contrary to this statement. In my home game we decided to do a tournament of blind mans bluff. Of course me being the best player in our game thought for sure I could do well. One particular hand player to my right has JJ and everyone else has rags. I can see by the players reaction that I too had a decent hand. I thought "ok I either play really aggresive or fold" I chose to fold because I know players at my home game sometimes think that AJ being the 4th person in the action against all ins big bet is good. I had 44. Anyways to sum this up Ppl clearly see the JJ and start raising against it. So just because they can see your cards there is some ppl out there who and this is a quote from an argument that came up at my home game, I wasn't even part of it, but the quote is this "I will win more money with luck than your so called odds and skill" It all started when he caught his flush against a big raise and chase with Q-4 suited. Just goes to show at the low levels you never know what someone can be on because top pair makes ppl push their whole stack not even thinking they can be beat.

[intheflatfield]

Listen, I think you are thinking of FTOP and applying it in a vacuum. I think the conditions and caveats are made clear. FTOP although it sounds simple, is in fact very complex and far reaching, and that applying a specific hand, with specific consideration, including meta-game issues simply to point out a "paradox" or "flaw" is misapplication.
I think FTOP encompasses all of the above factors.

[vulturesrow]

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.

[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.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
I 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 didnt want to be the first to say it, but, yeah.

[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.

[intheflatfield]

[ 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..