TOP: Fundamental Theorem discussion.

[cbloom]

Word. The fundamental theorem is deep.

[poincaraux]

[ 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 ]

Yes. That's why, for instance, there are so many posts in this forum where the answer is "of course you had to call on the river with your king-high flush; villain's range included sets, smaller flushes, straights and 2-pair."

If you phrase the FTOP in terms of ranges, I love it. If you think of it in terms of specific hands, I've seen it cause all sorts of results-oriented thinking. I don't know what they call the game where the other guy shows you his cards and you have to figure out how to play, but it sure isn't poker*.

*online poker is rigged, and thus immune from this statement [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

[mikechops]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

We agree.

[ QUOTE ]


[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wouldn't contradict that, but I don't think this is a good starting point to getting to optimal play. We make money when we make correct EV decisions, not when we happen to get lucky or our opponents unlucky, as to the actual hole cards.

Trying to analyze poker this way, is too close to results-based thinking. It is only another step before you are saying "I played well because the river gave me a flush." (I'm taking that a step further because you have no idea what the river is going to be. Although you don't know your opponents hand, you can make an educated guess. But a guess is all it is.)

[matrix]

[ QUOTE ]
The FTOP is the underpinning of optimal play. Optimal play stems from it.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a major clue here in the first word... Fundamental

[vulturesrow]

All +EV comes from the fact that you are making your opponent play his cards differently than he would if he knew what your holding. And how you get to results oriented thinking from that is beyond me. FTOP flatly contradicts any sort of results oriented thinking.

Now I am sort of confused. What is exactly is your argument against the FTOP?

[mikechops]

+EV comes from -EV decisions from your opponents.

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.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
+EV comes from -EV decisions from your opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]

Because they play differently than they otherwise shouldve had they known your cards.


[ 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 ]

You think calling with KK vs AA is a good call if you know the opponent's cards?

[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.

[mikechops]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
+EV comes from -EV decisions from your opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]

Because they play differently than they otherwise shouldve had they known your cards.



[/ QUOTE ]

No, because they play differently to how they should play if they were making intelligent estimates of your hand range. The Josh Arieh hand I mentioned earlier is an example of somebody making a -EV call that was correct if Josh had flipped his drawing hand over.

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

You think calling with KK vs AA is a good call if you know the opponent's cards?

[/ 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. Saying it is a bad call is wrong. Just as wrong as saying it is a good call because the turn happens to be the case K.

Anyway I don't want to get into a pissing match with you. I've read and learnt from your posts in the past and I think we agree on what optimal play is. It probably seems to others like we are getting a bit nit-picky with each other. If I were writing something I called the FTOP, I'd include hand ranges and EV. If you want to choose a different starting point that's cool, so long as you end up at the same place.

[poincaraux]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
+EV comes from -EV decisions from your opponents.


[/ QUOTE ]

Because they play differently than they otherwise shouldve had they known your cards.


[ 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 ]

You think calling with KK vs AA is a good call if you know the opponent's cards?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what I meant when I said

[ QUOTE ]
If you phrase the FTOP in terms of ranges, I love it. If you think of it in terms of specific hands, I've seen it cause all sorts of results-oriented thinking. I don't know what they call the game where the other guy shows you his cards and you have to figure out how to play, but it sure isn't poker*.

*online poker is rigged, and thus immune from this statement .

[/ QUOTE ]

My apologies if I'm taking your quote out of context .. I'm at work and only skimming the thread.

Edit: I just reread both of my posts in this thread, and they sound cranky and high-and-mighty. Like I said, I'm at work, skimming the thread, and posting quickly. Sorry about the tone, it's not on purpose, and I hope nobody gets offended!