After reading Alex's article about a whole new game and comments from top players about the changing poker climate I've been thinking (I know a bad idea).

I have boiled poker down to 1 concept, MISTAKES

Sklansky's fundemental theorem states, there is a mathematically correct way to play every time. To me this seems to be only part of the equation. The other part would be the theoretically correct way to play.

MATHEMATICALLY CORRECT WAY TO PLAY -
Basically, this is ABC, by the book, poker. The straightforward, vanilla, boring way to crush the lower limit games. Mathematical players do not go with hunches they play the right way. This school of thought says:

There is a right and wrong way to play every hand

Certain hands are profitable, most aren't

Only draw with the correct odds

The mathematically correct way to play helps you avoid mistakes. It doesn't cause any mistakes because the people paying you off will make mistakes regardless.

THEORETICALLY CORRECT WAY TO PLAY -
The theoretically correct way is more instinctual. Is he weak, can I bluff this guy out of the hand? Is he strong, should I lay down my strong hand even though I'm getting good pot odds? Could I stack this guy with 46offsuit? Even though if you could see his hand you make the mathematically wrong play because it is theoretically correct.

The thinking here is that by playing outside the box I will confuse my opponents into making mistakes and at the same time prey upon there straightforward play. you use implied odds, fold equity, bluffs, and such to influence your decisions much more.

The theoretically correct way to play capatilizes on your opponents predictability, and causes even more mistakes by them. You make mathematically incorrect decisions because it will win you the pot and you make purposefully small mistakes early on in order to capatilize on your risk later on.

If you could see your opponent ahs Ace high and you have King High, betting would be wrong, but if you know your opponent will lay down Ace high...


OK, thats out of the way. Now is one way better than the other? Well, no. nothing done to excess is good, so a mix of the 2 styles is best. Depending on the game type you are playing as well as your opponent(s) in the current hand the percentages will shift.

Against a loose passive in limit hold' em you would play almost 100% ABC poker. Since this opponent will make mistakes no matter how straightforward you play

Against a Tight aggressive in NLHE you would play more instinctually. trying to force a mistake later on in the hand. Since it will be difficult for you to outplay another good player. you have to trap them.

This doesn't mean you play any hand and hope to score big, you play your small pairs and suited connectors.

In my estimation about 95% of decisions in limit poker should be mathematical.

In No limit it would be significantly less maybe as low as 50/50 depending on the circustance.


Basically, you need to avoid mistakes by playing "correctly" and cause mistakes by your decent to good opponents by being unpredictable. Against bad players avoiding mistakes is enough to win.

Poker boils down to 1 thing MISTAKES

I'll add my serious thoughts - each hand you have to take into consideration your table dynamics. If I'm in a hand vs a donk at stud8 and pair a baby on 4th vs his high pair I just check because its 51/49 to him - good players will fold and in fact likely would not be in the hand unless it was a steal, if they were in the hand they would fold. Vs a donk they just call and you are putting money in when they are ahead because they do not understand the game.

Basically each move you make must be with total regard to your opponent.
Its wrong to stick to one set of hand requirements vs all players and its wrong to play hands mechanically.

I think this is why a lot of players who have read books and play TAG fail to live up their own expectation at micro limits, there are a range of tight/loose/agro/passive and the HIGHEST VARIANCE IN TABLE DYNAMICS IS FOUND AT LOW LEVELS.

Adapting to table dynamics is rarely talked about, its all are they loose or tight or blah and the real answer is - every table is unique.

Thats really why I made the Bruce Lee Quote - you have to adapt to every table and every opponent, if you set yourself into a set criteria you have taken form and are exploitable. - Be Water.

dude, read more than the first 1/2 of my post!!! You are really annoying me with your responses, I said what you said in theoretically playing AFTER mathematically.

I agree with what you say BUT, don't pretend like its an original thought to the thread when I already stated it or that it's rarely talked aboutwhen I say in the original post

Depending on the game type you are playing as well as your opponent(s) in the current hand.

I don't mean to be a jerk about this. My biggest issue with people on here comes from these responses where people don't read the entire post or pick out a small nugget to discuss at length killing the real topic. If you have nothing to add or detract from the thread just leave it be. If you wanna discuss solely table conditions create your own thread.

This thread is what i believe to be the most simplistic concept of poker, mistakes. Table conditrions is a small aspect of mistakes in the big picture, hence it gets 1 or 2 lines.

if you think poker has more to do with table conditions than mistakes than by all means argue with me about it. But don't act like the thread is about adjusting to your opponents when it is about mistakes in general.

Beavis the whole body of work is mistakes.

Avoiding them yourself and causing them with "incorrect play". Playing ABC poker avoids you making mistakes, while a slight change of pace in your play will cause them in your opponents.

you cause mistakes by playing wrong mathematically, calling a raise with 67s when he has AA because it can lead to a bigger mistake by your opponent later on that will be profitable.

Going by the fundemaental theorem this play is wrong, theoretically it can be correct.

Anyone who thinks poker is all math is just as wrong as someone who feels it is all gambling.

I don't make as much distinction between theoretically correct and mathematicallly correct. Something is only correct in poker because the math says it is profitable.

your opponent has nothing to do with math, his playing style and mindset can turn the mathematically correct play into a bad play by you if you don't consider them. this is not advanced math it is instincts and recognition of your enviroment.

Originally Posted by Steve-O

you cause mistakes by playing wrong mathematically, calling a raise with 67s when he has AA because it can lead to a bigger mistake by your opponent later on that will be profitable.

Are you talking implied odds? Or are you talking head games? There is a math basis for both.

Isn't game theory a math discipline?

You have no way of knowing a move is profitable unless you can show it mathematically.