|
|
#41
02-02-2006, 01:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: TOP: Fundamental Theorem discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] I took that out and put it back in 5 times, because I wasn't sure if I wanted to even open that can of worms. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] 
|
|
#42
02-02-2006, 02:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: TOP: Fundamental Theorem discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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. [/ QUOTE ] Are people really dismissing it in this thread? I know that I, for one, think it is incredibly valuable and insightful in general, but that there are times when it may not fully apply. A really bad player can blunder into a "two wrongs make a right" situation where they misread your hand and make a play that is incorrect given their read, that winds up being absolutely proper in the situation. If you could actually show them your cards, they'd then change their mind and make a mistake. The examples I described in my original post come to mind, and I know those situations are not purely hypothetical. In general, the FTOP is a good rule to start from. I'm just saying that there are times when our opponents are SO bad that seeing our cards would not help them on a particular play. I completely agree with the people who say that bluffing is in keeping with the FTOP. We bluff because, KNOWING what our opponents have, we know we're beaten, and checking or folding wins us nothing. However, since our opponents DON'T know our cards, our bluff can fool our opponents into making an incorrect decision -- one they would never make if they could see our cards. It's actually the proper choice for us to make even if we knew our opponent's hands, and it is based on trying to induce an FTOP mistake in our opponents that will then make us money. If our opponents showed us their winning hands, we would STILL bluff if the conditions were right -- that means that it isn't an FTOP mistake. --------------- Let me raise a different, but related thought: preflop reraises. In considering the FTOP, I've concluded that I need to either reraise preflop MORE often or LESS often. Currently, I only make this play 1% of the time or so. Usually, my reraise means I've got AA-JJ, and sometimes I'll even smooth-call with those. Occasionally, I'll reraise with a weaker hand if the original raiser has a wide range and I know he is capable of folding, either to this bet or a continuation bet. Unfortunately, I don't pull that trigger often enough. As a result, my preflop reraises reveal a tremendous amount about my hands, which allows my opponents to play much closer to the FTOP optimum. How should I mix up my preflop reraise play in order to encourage my opponents to make more FTOP mistakes? What sorts of hands should I preflop reraise? What sorts of table conditions are important? What sorts of issues should I consider?
|
|
#43
02-02-2006, 02:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: TOP: Fundamental Theorem discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ 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. [/ QUOTE ] I took that out and put it back in 5 times, because I wasn't sure if I wanted to even open that can of worms. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] I am not sure I want to open it again either [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] What I have found most helpful on these boards, is the kind of hand analysis, that goes over an opponent's range of possible holdings and comes up with a fold/call/bet/push decision. "80% of the time he has an overpair -puuuush" or "he has TPTK too often to fold". That is the kind of thinking that is basic to playing good poker. By contrast, I find the FTOP an attempt to state in pseudo-mathematical terms what poker is about. If you start trying to apply it to specific hands, it doesn't really get you anywhere. You need to consider ranges of hands and ranges of possible reactions to play optimal poker.
|
|
#44
02-02-2006, 02:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: TOP: Fundamental Theorem discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ 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. [/ QUOTE ] Are people really dismissing it in this thread? [/ QUOTE ] Note in my next post, my trepidation to even mention it. Also, it wasn't that they were questioning it, its that as someone who is pretty new to poker (like me), I first think, "ok I'm probably missing something" before jumping to I think the FTOP is missing something. I would have phrased it as "How does this justify bluffing? I can't see it." Maybe thats just me. [ QUOTE ] In general, the FTOP is a good rule to start from. I'm just saying that there are times when our opponents are SO bad that seeing our cards would not help them on a particular play. [/ QUOTE ] This is certainly true in some situations, but I think even against the biggest donk, you would be in pretty bad shape if they could see your cards and they couldn't see theirs. [ QUOTE ] Let me raise a different, but related thought: preflop reraises. In considering the FTOP, I've concluded that I need to either reraise preflop MORE often or LESS often. Currently, I only make this play 1% of the time or so. Usually, my reraise means I've got AA-JJ, and sometimes I'll even smooth-call with those. Occasionally, I'll reraise with a weaker hand if the original raiser has a wide range and I know he is capable of folding, either to this bet or a continuation bet. Unfortunately, I don't pull that trigger often enough. As a result, my preflop reraises reveal a tremendous amount about my hands, which allows my opponents to play much closer to the FTOP optimum. How should I mix up my preflop reraise play in order to encourage my opponents to make more FTOP mistakes? What sorts of hands should I preflop reraise? What sorts of table conditions are important? What sorts of issues should I consider? [/ QUOTE ] I think this is a very good point, and I think most of us are pretty guilty of this. I think in Super System, Doyle recommends playing AK like AA-KK mostly as a randomizing agent in these cases. If your opponent is the weak-tight, I like re-raising with suited connectors too. Remember, its expensive, but you only need to get caught once for people not to trust your re-raises (and maybe not even once if you show your hand when they lay down).
|
|
#45
02-02-2006, 02:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: TOP: Fundamental Theorem discussion.
The FTOP is the underpinning of optimal play. Optimal play stems from it. If wasnt the starting point, the book wouldve ended with Chapter 1. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#46
02-02-2006, 02:34 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: TOP: Fundamental Theorem discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
The FTOP is the underpinning of optimal play. Optimal play stems from it. If wasnt the starting point, the book wouldve ended with Chapter 1. [/ QUOTE ] Well stated sir..
|
|
#47
02-02-2006, 02:43 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: TOP: Fundamental Theorem discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
The FTOP is the underpinning of optimal play. Optimal play stems from it. If wasnt the starting point, the book wouldve ended with Chapter 1. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [/ 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.
|
|
#48
02-02-2006, 02:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: TOP: Fundamental Theorem discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
The FTOP is the underpinning of optimal play. Optimal play stems from it. If wasnt the starting point, the book wouldve ended with Chapter 1. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [/ QUOTE ] My thoughts exaxctly. Just looking at the FTOP in itself is not entirely complete, it's a base to build on. The whole book is expanding on this base. Sklansky himself says there are times when you want to deviate from the FTOP.
|
|
#49
02-02-2006, 02:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: TOP: Fundamental Theorem discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
The starting point to optimal play is correctly putting your opponent on a range of hands. [/ QUOTE ] You put the opponent on a range of hands because poker is a game of incomplete information and thus your starting point can almost never be "I know exactly what his hand is". [ QUOTE ] 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 ] Of course. How does this contradict the point that I make money when I make my opponents play differently than they would if I flipped my cards over every time before we started a hand? We are basically talking theory and how it relates to practice here. I wish I had the book in front of me right now because I know Sklansky does address these points, at least indirectly.
|
|
#50
02-02-2006, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: TOP: Fundamental Theorem discussion.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The FTOP is the underpinning of optimal play. Optimal play stems from it. If wasnt the starting point, the book wouldve ended with Chapter 1. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [/ 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 this invalidates his point how?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
