|
|
 The Fundamental Theorem of Poker
Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents' cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards, they lose. Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if they could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if they could see all your cards, you lose.
David Slansky, The Theory of Poker
I don't want to be too cute here, given that Slansky knew more about poker than I will ever know, before I even started playing the game ...
... BUT ...
isn't so much of the challenge of the game about making plays that exploit others' lack of knowledge of your cards, or hedge against such bids by opponents against you? Indeed, Slansky himself goes on to explain the importance of disguising one's hand.
Example 1: I bluff, you fold. Indeed, you play differently to how you would have played, had you seen my cards; and you lose. But I win, despite having played differently to how I would play if knowledge of your cards alone were enough to determine my optimal action.
It was not my knowledge that you had a hand good enough to call my bluff that led to me winning, rather it was my playing the situation or the person that provided the win. I hedged against a high risk (or a certainty had I known it) of losing, by presenting believable strength or an expensive stake.
Example 2: Late in a sit-and-go, chip-leader raises high enough to put chip-trailer all-in (or close) to close him out of the hand or force a desparation bet to be on terms more probable to be favourable to the leader.
Situation, stacks, stakes and selection of hands, not just unseen card values, weigh very heavily in determining optimal action. of course, the theorem does not deny this, it's assumed: all other things being equal. But all other things are rarely equal in poker.
I guess I'm interested to hear from thoughtful players more experienced than myself as to whether they think it likely that there's not truly one stand-alone fundamental theorem of poker, but rather several overlapping fundamental principles.
Perhaps my understanding of the game is distorted by playing very casual players, willing to go all-in on a last card gutshot. I must read Slansky. He probably answers my questions. Perhaps someone could give me a preview. 
|
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Carroters
