I am trying to understand if morton’s theorem is true and is a legitimate loop-hole in FToP.

The best example I have seen is

Player A holds Ad Kc
Player B holds Ah Th
Player C holds Qc 9c.

Flop is Ks 9h 3h 4d –actually it says that the turn is a “blank”

It is postulated that when the pot is between 6.25 and 8.5bets player A profits when player C CORRECTLY folds.

But according to twodimes.net

Pot if player C folds is equity
Player A 78.6%
Player B 20.5%

Pot if player C calls is equity
Player A 69%
Player B 21.4%
Player C 9.5%


If the pot including a turn bet by Player A and a call by Player B to player C is 6.25BB

If player C folds, player As stake of the pot is 4.91 BBs if player C calls player As share of the new pot 7.25BB pot is 5.00. It is pretty much a wash, the profit is minimal.

Now, what happens on the river? Can we assume that if a heart hits, playerA will play the same on the river? Or would PlayerA be more likely to fold to a bet by PlayerB is C also called? Lets say they are the same. And ignore it.

We can assume that player A will lose between 1 and 2 extra bets the 9.5% of the time that a Q or 9 hits on the river.

Averaging that out, that would be about -.15BB

70% of the time, no flush or Q or 9 will hit if Player C calls a river bet as little as 22% of the time, the results will break-even. Any additional calls will result in additional profit. I don’t think that the we can assume that player C will call often that that. Sense he has already been calling against the odds and must feel there is some chance his hand is best.

So, this is a worst case scenario for Morton's, since this is where PlayerCs call would be biggest mistake pot-odds wise, and it seems that it only erodes player As profit if player C is sure he is behind and will not call on the river without improving.

Then there is the question of whether or not his call is correct in the first place. But this is enough for now.

There is also the question of whether or not the FToP is a proper or useful way to judge poker play - maybe later.

Sklansky actually gives us examples where the FToP is incorrect.

It is correct in EVERY head/up pot and MOST multi way pots.

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

Do you have any examples? I have never seen one that is very obviously wrong.

I while, it is true that we profit from our opponents mistakes, and our opponents profit from ours - I believe his definition of "mistake" is flawed, or at least not the best judge of proper play.

Nevermind, I have my copy at work. Expect a follow-up!

Ok, he talks about the "mistakes" too.....

His example is pretty vague at the end of the chapter, and shows how you may profit by a correct raise and fold by your oppenets but it is not specifc and I am having a hard time constructing an actual situation.

His definition of mistake is playing differently from how you would when you could see your opponents cards. Of coruse this assumes you aren't an idiot.

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

I know that.... but how useful is that... but I think that belongs in a new thread that I may start soon.

I ran some calculations if the pot is bigger, it does hurt you more because your loss of pot equity is not off-set by the gain from his bet. But the larger the pot the more correct his call is in actuallity, due to implied odds and the chance that the hand my be the best.

Does this mean you shouldn't raise? No, your raise still adds to the pot, and not raising doesn't keep you from losing your pot equity.

I have seen people use this as an example of how online play or loose games can't be beaten, but that is certainly not true.

Also, I think the loop-hole comes from the lack of accuracy of judging a play based on knowing the cards, and not by judging correct play based on the weighted avegage of what your opponents MAY be playing. Playing correctly is always going to lead to FToP "mistakes".

Assuming that C will make a river call is an error. If he does this is a MISTAKE according to the FTOP.

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

Don't know if this helps or not, but kreigers usually pretty good at explaining things:

http://www.loukrieger.com/articles/morton.htm


Explains the origins and some applications of Morton's thereom.

__________________

That is funny, that is where I got my example.

My problem with the theorem is that the loss only becomes significant as the pot becomes bigger, and the bigger the pot the less of a mistake your opponent is making. And in-fact it is only a mistake if you knew exactly what your opponents had. A play that is +EV could still be a "mistake" under the FToP, because FToP is completely result oriented.

It also ignores the fact that you have already profited from your opponents mistake by the fact that he is in the pot with you in the first place.

As the pot becomes bigger, it is becoming more correct for him to call.

__________________
“There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about.” - John von Neumann

yes, that is what I meant by "making less of a mistake"

Did you have a point or are you grabbing random phrases out of my posts and rewording them?