The Fundamental Theorem of Poker

[Alex Scott]

I read with interest an article by David Downing in a recent issue of Card Player Europe, in which the author claims that the Fundamental Theorem of Poker, as described in Sklansky's book, has received a lot of criticism over the years:

'Probably the most famous of these is David Sklansky and his vaunted Theory of Poker. Incidentally, his main theory has taken some knocks over the years, and seems far less robust than when it was first unveiled. But this is the problem with declaiming, “This is a fundamental law.” Before you know it, some smart new kids on the block start poking holes in it, and the whole edifice gets a little crumbly. Just ask Isaac Newton.'
(from http://www.cardplayer.com/cpeurope/a...72&m_id=26 )

I know this might not be the most unbiased place to ask, but what are these criticisms, and how has David responded to them?

I'm just curious. The Fundamental Theorem has been very useful to me over the years and I use it a lot.

[Galwegian]

Some criticisms that I've seen (in no particular order)
1. The Fundamental Theorem of Poker (FTP) is not a theorem. A theorem should have carefully stated hypothesis and conclusions. This is not just nit picking. The usefulness of any theorem (or mathematical fact) comes from know exactly when it can and cannot be used. As stated in Theory of Poker the FTP does meet this criterion.

2. The FTP does not necessarily apply to multiway pots. This has been observed by many people.

3. The FTP is not a fact about the game of poker - it is a fact about another game in which one has perfect information about your opponents cards. Certainly the FTP has applications to the game of poker - in deciding whether a particular play had +EV after the hand is over. However, something claiming to be the fundamental fact about poker should really be about poker.

Having said all that, it is undeniable that the FTP is an enormously useful tool when analysing many situations.

[Ace-Ex]

The FTP is what makes Poker a game of skill, rather than a simple gambling game like craps or blackjack. FTP means you are unable to accurately deduce the odds in every (or most any) situation and therefore the game becomes as much psychological as it is mathematical.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]

1. The Fundamental Theorem of Poker (FTP) is not a theorem. A theorem should have carefully stated hypothesis and conclusions.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's actually more of an axiom, isn't it?

Sometimes I get the sense that Sklansky feels slightly defensive about his career choice and feels the need to make poker sound more appealing to intellectuals. To be sure, he's done much over his lifetime in increasing the intellectual street cred of the game. But I suspect calling it a "theorem" is a manifestation of that felt need.

OK, that's enough nickel pyschological analysis out of me. Maybe I should get a degree before I prattle on. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Kaeser]

[ QUOTE ]
The FTP is what makes Poker a game of skill, rather than a simple gambling game like craps or blackjack. FTP means you are unable to accurately deduce the odds in every (or most any) situation and therefore the game becomes as much psychological as it is mathematical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe we read a different FTP because I don't see where you're getting any of that.

[Ace-Ex]

An axiom is a premise. A theorem is a deduction from known facts. The premise is that you don't know your oppenents holdings. The theorem is that you can deduce from that that there is a way to exploit this disadvantage by inducing him to make him from making a "perfect" play.

[Anders]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The FTP is what makes Poker a game of skill, rather than a simple gambling game like craps or blackjack. FTP means you are unable to accurately deduce the odds in every (or most any) situation and therefore the game becomes as much psychological as it is mathematical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe we read a different FTP because I don't see where you're getting any of that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe he is just referring to a corollary [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[NMcNasty]

I agree with the general idea here, but I think one flaw in the theorem (or at least the way its presented) is that even when you do have precise information about your opponents holding, there is still the issue of how much to value bet or whether a bluff would be successful or not. A perfect read followed by a reasonable bluff can still lose to a questionable call. The way the theorem is worded it seems to suggest that when you know your opponents cards you can always make the right play.

[Alex Scott]

[ QUOTE ]
2. The FTP does not necessarily apply to multiway pots. This has been observed by many people.

[/ QUOTE ]

Surely it can be appplied to most multiway pots with only slight modifications in interpretation?

I think the main difficulty in applying the Fundamental Theorem is that you are forced to make a lot of assumptions about the way your opponents play, but I suppose that is unavoidable in a game like poker. Obviously in multiway pots you're forced to make even more assumptions about how your opponents will react, because you have to consider how each opponent will react not only to your action, but also those of the other players.

Still, I'd be interested to see those threads where people have pointed out where the FTP doesn't apply - if anyone has links or thread names, please share them.