Talk:Fundamental theorem of poker

Gambling: Poker Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gambling, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gambling on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GamblingWikipedia:WikiProject GamblingTemplate:WikiProject GamblingGambling articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by WikiProject Poker (assessed as Low-importance).

WikiProject Gambling To-do:

Current collaborations:

Improve an article to FA

Improve an article to A

Help with the Gambling articles needing attention.
Tag the talk pages of Gambling-related articles with the {{WikiProject Gambling}} banner.
The link to the Missouri gambling site is now out of date and needs to be updated.
Japan section reads as though it was written by the gambling industry - quotes of 160% returns are 'citation needed'.

Opening comment

Just in case tinyurl ever dies, the complete URL for the link I gave is:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.gambling.poker
/browse_thread/thread/2e0c266cb6293859/6b2068000df84361?fwc=1

Evercat 17:46, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio?

I've just removed an entire section from the article because I think it was a copyvio from [removed stealing site URL, see edit history for it]. Revert if I'm wrong. --Zoz (t) 21:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That site has only been live for two months. They just stole the wiki article. 2005 21:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. Thanks for correcting me, then. --Zoz (t) 22:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm I missing something? It seems to me the theorm is saying nothing more than "the best way to play a hand is they way you'd play it if you hand complete knowledge of everyones cards". Is it anything more that that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.65.214 (talk) 06:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is more to it. It also says that when one player gains, the other necessarily loses. It claims there are no cases where both players gain or both players lose. This is why it's wrong for multiway pots or multiplayer tournaments. 213.243.163.221 (talk) 12:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's not technically talking about the best way for you to play your cards (except in the corollary) - it's talking about the best outcome for you as a player given how your opponent plays their cards. Your goal, therefore, as a poker player is to try to get your opponent to play their cards differently than they would if they knew what cards you had, no matter what cards your opponent actually holds. Note that the theorem says "differently", it does not say "more aggressively" or "more passively", and it does not talk about folding or raising. Another way of looking at it: any time you can fool your opponent into thinking you hold different cards than you actually do, you gain. 99.46.136.183 (talk) 09:11, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear example

Is it just me, or is the Example section kind of an unreadable mess?

First we have a pronoun issue. The text overuses "he" with unclear, sometimes shifting antecedents. Reading it, I frequently can't follow whether it refers to Tom or the Big Blind. At one point a "she" even appears out of nowhere!

Persuasively, the explanation also suffers. It asserts that, if Tom knew his opponent's cards, Tom's best decision would be to raise on the flop. Why? The paragraph above lays out the rationale for folding when Tom is ignorant quite thoroughly, including the possibility the BB is on a flush or straight draw. How then does the knowledge that the BB is indeed drawing to a flush and a (partially blocked) gutshot tip the calculus? To make matters even more confusing, the text even states the BB would be getting correct pot odds to call, which seems to suggest the BB maintains an advantage. I know there is probably a rationale behind the move but, for a beginner-level article, it should be fleshed out more completely. Instead, the article justifies the decision by appeal to the Fundamental Theorem of Poker, which strikes me as totally circular.

Grifter84 (talk) 01:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up the language a bit. It still doesn't answer the question that it is better to raise because 99 is a favorite over 87 on this flop, but it should make who has what clearer. 2005 (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Application to this theorem in other games

As I read the theorem itself, albeit with my limited understanding of Poker and the theorem itself, I instantly thought of how this theorem also holds for other games; my mind instantly jumped to Mahjong. For example, it would be foolish to try and go for thirteen orphans if someone else has a closed kan/kong (four) of terminals or honours.

I'm sure this isn't the only other game this rule applies to. Question is, what other games does this theorem apply to, and would it be worth discussing in the article? KittySaya (talk) 08:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]