Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
 

I recently finished my second reading of The Theory of Poker and I really got a lot out of it this time through. There is one question I have and please forgive me if it is stupid or if it has been answered many times before.

Is it more intelligent to play according to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker or Pot Odds?

The reason I ask is because I can see many situations where Pot Odds would justify one action and the Fundamental Theorem of Poker would call for a different play (i.e. crying calls on the end when you know you're beat but the odds are right).

Which is more important: Pot Odds or the Fundamental Theorem of Poker?

Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
 

An excellent question - one fundamentally about perfect vs. imperfect information aka a question about reading/tells.

Personally, I try to never use pot odds as a justification for doing something stupid, so I say FTP.

Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
 

To have "pot odds" says you should at least call.
It doesnt mean that raising isnt better.

A crying call on the river when you 'know' you're beat is just stupid. The reason you're calling is because you dont 'know' that you're beat.

Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
 

[ QUOTE ]
I can see many situations where Pot Odds would justify one action and the Fundamental Theorem of Poker would call for a different play (i.e. crying calls on the end when you know you're beat but the odds are right).

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't really choose between the two, because the two are not comparable. Also a mistake according to the fundamental theorem does not have to be a mistake in poker. Let me explain...

The fundamental theorem of poker states that every time you play your hand differently from how you would if you saw all the cards you make a 'fundamental theorem mistake'. When making such a mistake you loose, thus your opponents gain. However it is possible to make a small mistake to lead your opponent into making a bigger one, which is a mistake according the fundamental theorem, but is NOT a mistake in poker.

Pot odds is a number that states the amount to call versus the amount that is in the pot at that moment. You compare it to your chances to win to see if you get the odds to call profitably. To do this correctly you should include your (reverse) implied odds as well. You could use this tool with imperfect information (if you are drawing to the nuts, or close to it) or with perfect information (if you know what the other guy is holding for some reason).

So these are two entirely different and incomparable concepts therefore you can't choose between them.

Just understand that there is a theoretical correct play (optimal strategy) if poker were a game of perfect information (you could see all the cards). If you follow this play you don't make any mistakes according to the 'fundamental theorem'.
Pot odds are just one of the tools you use to figure out that play (even while poker is a game of imperfect information you can draw to hands that you are quite sure off that they will win the pot, so it's ok).
Finally a mistake to the fundamental theorem is not a mistake in poker if you trade it for a bigger mistake of by opponents.

GL

Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
 

good post, i think?

Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
 

[ QUOTE ]

You can't really choose between the two, because the two are not comparable.


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
 

While I see the point you guys are making about the two being incomparable, here's the dilemma I see:

Page 80 in HOH1:

"Action: You check and Player F bets $5,000. What do you do?

Answer: It costs you $5,000 to see a pot of almost $20,000. Those are excellent odds. Of course, Player F knows that and he gave you those odds anyway, so you're probably beaten. But just in case, I would call anyway."

If you're playing according to pot odds, you have to call as Harrington suggests. But, if you're playing according to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker (seeing your opponents cards and being able to see you're beat) you would fold and save yourself the bet on the end. Am I way off base here? What am I missing or not understanding?

Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
 

You have asked a million dollar question.

My own personal opinion is that you need a good understanding of both pot odds, implied odds and all other odds, the theory of poker and then add the magic ingredient.

And that is, poker instinct. Or in other words, reads. Odds tell you to call but instinct will tell you to raise or call against the odds if you have the right read or even fold if the odds are there but you have a gut feeling (see reverse implied odds).

It's that simple and that difficult.

Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you're playing according to pot odds, you have to call as Harrington suggests. But, if you're playing according to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker (seeing your opponents cards and being able to see you're beat) you would fold and save yourself the bet on the end.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you could see that you were beat, you would fold in both cases.

Re: Fundamental Theorem of Poker vs. Pot Odds
 

Somewhat of a threadjack, but...

Just today I was trying to find an answer about pot odds that I thought was in TOP, but I could find it. Can someone tell me where the answer to this is?

Say you are playing NLHE and you and an opponent see a flop and there is already a pot of $100.

You have exactly enough outs to the nut hand to call a pot sized bet. The problem is that both you and your opponent have $200 left. If you call this bet on the flop, then the pot will be $300. If the board blanks, then your opponent surely is going to be $100 all in and you will be forced to call $100 into a $500 pot and will surely have to do this.

If there isn't enough money left for a full PSB on the next street (turn), where you will be pot committed, how can you just call on the flop? It seems that you don't have enough pot equity to push all in on the flop, but folding would be a "mistake".