Is The FTOP Correct?

[PokrLikeItsProse]

[ QUOTE ]
maybe this whole thing is over my head but according to Mr. Prock folding when you are a 64% to win is the optimal play. How is this so?

[/ QUOTE ]

Folding T8o in the big blind to an all-in push by the SB in that scenario is the optimal play for the BB because, in real poker, you don't know what hand your opponent actually holds. If you were using marked cards or your opponent exposed his cards or some other scenario where you could see your opponent's hand, then you would obviously call, I am sure Mr. Prock would agree.

Prock's point is that you can't normally know what your opponent holds (unless you are a very good handreader or have a very readable opponent), so evaluating decisions as if you could possibly know what your opponent has is completely silly. There's some truth to that, given how I see some players cite the FTOP as a reason to fold from a results-oriented perspective, but just because people use it inartfully does not mean that the FTOP is inherently bogus.

People who express disdain for the FTOP concentrate on the notion that it is not really fundamental. They should instead note that it is not really a theorem. It's a useful....rule of thumb, I guess would be the best term to use....but it's not really a theorem and is only named as such because David Sklansky liked the parallelism he could establish with mathematical theorems. The basic thrust of the FTOP is that you profit from your opponents' mistakes and arguing over what actually constitutes a mistake distracts from that. Perhaps Sklansky made an error in defining a mistake exactly as he did, perhaps not.

The way that the FTOP was worded could have been stated much more differently and mathematically rigorously, but the whole point of stating it simplistically was to communicate the fundamental concept that you want your opponents to make mistakes to those who are not so mathematically inclined.

[O_Witty]

[ QUOTE ]
Folding T8o in the big blind to an all-in push by the SB in that scenario is the optimal play for the BB because, in real poker, you don't know what hand your opponent actually holds.

[/ QUOTE ]
With that said, this is poker theory people nobody said this was actual practice, the title of his next book is called theory and practice. Maybe the title of this thread should be called "FTOP correct in practice?" because in theory FTOP is correct however at the table, it is just not possibe for a poker player to make that <u>GOOD</u> a play. Harrington mentions FTOP a few times in his book when he is talking about table decisions. Is Harrington wrong also?

[schroedy]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I think Bloch's comments are out of line in general. The Theory of Poker is a very good, if perhaps slightly flawed, book that has taught countless people how to think about poker. Suggesting that it's not worth reading . . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Did Andy read it (TOP)? How does he know it wasn't worth it? (How could it NOT be worth &lt;two big bets?)

I would also point out that not all of us studied engineering or higher mathematics at MIT, Andy, although I could tell you a thing or two about 19th century continental existentialism, or after professional school, asset backed securities.

David's book TOP has paid for itself many times over and is probably worth about 1 big bet on average for every semi-bluff situation I ever face with position. Come to think of it, it's probably worth about 1/2 of a big bet for every showdown I ever go to.

[RagnarPirate]

Isn't that the same as what I said?

[Artsemis]

TOP Specifically says it mostly applies to heads up play and isn't always exactly correct for multi-way hands. We're criticizing a boook over something pointed out in that book?

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
So yes, if I were to write the FTOP chapter in TOP, I'd write it in a way that says something like, "You know exactly what you have, but your opponents will only be able to put you on a range of hands. Recognize what range they are likely to put you on, then make a play that will encourage them to make a mistake GIVEN THE ACTUAL HAND YOU HAVE. They may be playing ok based on their knowledge... but you know that their play is wrong because you have more information. This isn't the be all and end all, but it's something to think about every time you make a play."

[/ QUOTE ]

Well-said, Ed. I think the key word here is definately range.