TOP: Fundamental Theorem discussion.

[ErnieSIrwin]

[ QUOTE ]

If you look at the range of hands you could put an UTG raiser who pushes that flop, it is to say the least a very gutsy call to make. I would argue it was huge mistake. However according to the FTOP, the call was correct because the guy was ahead 57:43 (according to ESPN).


[/ QUOTE ]

Just like to mention that ESPN's odds are a lot truer than what a player could calculate. They know the dead cards that the players mucked, while the Englishman has to assume they are still live.

good post - i like what was just said by above poster about hand ranges. i feel that is more important in holdem than this 'fundamental theorem' because we NEVER know EXACTLY what villian is holding.

[mikechops]

True (but a little besides the point). Here are the odds from poker stove. They aren't too far off. And I couldn't swear ESPN had it as 57:43.

Board: Ah Kc Qh
Dead:

equity (%) win (%) tie (%)
Hand 1: 41.4141 % 36.26% 05.15% { Jh9h }
Hand 2: 58.5859 % 53.43% 05.15% { AcJs }

[Mercman572]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the whole theorm is a over-rated. It certainly isn't what I'd call fundamental. Talking about inducing a 'mistake' from an opponent, when he doesn't know your cards and you don't know his, is a bit silly.

[/ QUOTE ]
<font color="blue"> PLEASE everyone, argue the theory, not the assumptions, it's way more productive. Don't play semantics. </font>

[ QUOTE ]

Poker comes down to putting people on a range of hands and playing optimally from there. You need to make correct estimates of the relative probability of your opponents' holding(s) and their likely reactions to your possible actions. Then you select the action that gives you the highest EV. That's fundamental.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is applying the fundamental theorem of poker to play. Good. First part of fulfilling the FTOP is to put him on a good range of hands, that's the best you can do to seeing his cards. Your own skill and experience, and the opponent's plays/ability will cause this to vary.

From there you decide your play.


I said we need to discuss as it applies to us, part of that means that the majority of the time we won't have to induce a player to make a mistake. You must decide how closely the opponent can play as if your cards were shown given a certain action. That's the other part of it.

The Fundamental Theorem is indeed fundamental, it is not simple. It is not the introductory theorem. It's incredibly complex and far reaching.

[bitter&twisted]

mikechops[ QUOTE ]
If you look at the range of hands you could put an UTG raiser who pushes that flop, it is to say the least a very gutsy call to make. I would argue it was huge mistake. However according to the FTOP, the call was correct because the guy was ahead 57:43 (according to ESPN).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky makes the distinction between a FTP "mistake" and the kind of mistake you are talking about, where someone makes a correct call by the numbers but considering what the other could have been holding the call is pretty stupid.

So you can have a mistake according the the FTP but good play according to the educated poker player.

mikechops[ QUOTE ]
Poker comes down to putting people on a range of hands and playing optimally from there. You need to make correct estimates of the relative probability of your opponents' holding(s) and their likely reactions to your possible actions. Then you select the action that gives you the highest EV. That's fundamental.

[/ QUOTE ]
grimstarr[ QUOTE ]
good post - i like what was just said by above poster about hand ranges. i feel that is more important in holdem than this 'fundamental theorem' because we NEVER know EXACTLY what villian is holding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assigning hand ranges and playing accordingly is a fundamental skill that a player uses to play good poker. But its not a fundamental way of describing what the ideal course of action is.

Guess Sklansky was trying to be all sciency by trying to set out principles of poker. So it doesn't feel to poker players that this is what they are doing when they play poker. But I think that it is a reasonable way of describing what optimal play is.

[cbloom]

I think there's another facet to it. You can make the maximum value play only if you know your opponents cards *and how he would play them given all future boards cards*. If you play idealy corresponding to his cards, but incorrectly based on how he will play them, then you are making a mistake in an EV sense, which is all that matters.

[bitter&twisted]

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.

[cbloom]

[ 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 ]

If you have him beat, and you want to maximize value, will he raise if you bet? will he bet if you check? will he call a check raise? if you check multiple streets will he bet his whole stack?

If you're beat, but want to draw a cheap card, will he just call if you bet small? will he bet small if you check? could he fold his AA if you make a big bluff? If the flush card hits will he be scared of it and fold?

Clearly you can't play for maximum value unless you know how he'll play his cards in every situation. (you can play optimally in a game-theory sense, assuming that he also plays optimally).

[bitter&twisted]

yes of course I'm an idiot

[bitter&twisted]

Edited for stupidity