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 didn't think much outside the basic math when I started and I did well, but poker's a much different game than it was 2 or 3 years ago. I think anyone a couple of years ago could kill low-NL games playing like a robot, having every situation mapped out before you hit the table.

The fundamental theorem of poker, which is pretty simple, as stated by Sklansky is "Everytime you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see your opponents' cards, they gain. Every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you couls see all their cards, they lose. [Insert inverse here]."

The proofs that he presents to aid this theory best are the one where you put your opponent on a hand and act accordingly. That's where the math comes in. Oddly enough, there a huge misinterpretation of this theorem where people abuse the math to look too hard for reasons to stay in a hand or the opposite. This bias is seldom based your reads, but your discipline, fears, or momentary feelings of inadequacy and are outside of the game.

I apply this theory is NL pretty well making calls and raises and re-raises that look like fishyness at the moment, but I know that I can extract enough money when I hit the hand that I want to make my move correct. By correct, I mean that when you crunch the numbers, I make more real, cold, hard cash than I invested.

I use my opponents' mistakes against them and the number one mistake that someone can make against me is letting me see cheap cards or letting me see them at the price I choose. I don't make bad investments many times. There's always a projection in my head. Of course, I'm not psychic, but the repition of trusting of me being me is the constant as are certain grouping of others. If these producers could see my cards, they wouldn't make that mistake. That's where they lose.

This is why i find poker theory so interesting.

It is like a triangle that holds inside "winning poker". Each corner is a main concept of poker: Discipline in all its forms, Knowledge of the game, and Psychology in it's many uses. These concepts are crucial and hard to maintain or learn. So, if one is lacking or starts to waiver your triangle will crumble and winning poker will ooze out. Additionally, along each side are smaller, more individualized, concepts that can be lacking and are easier to apply, but if too many are lacking or if they are misused, winning poker will not ooze out but slowly seep out through these small pin holes (there could be 100 of these small leaks though).

As long as those 3 main pillars are in place you can do pretty well. How you manage all those concepts along the edges is what will increase your advantage, or decrease as the case may be.

There is probably 1,000 of these smaller concepts, some players use 10 of them to perfection, some use 400 decently, the point is every player is different in how they use them.

However, properly applied, they all work together to do 1 thing, avoid and cause mistakes.

A check-raise is designed to cause a mistake from your opponent. A misused check-raise creates a mistake by you and allows your opponent to avoid a mistake.

Paying attention to your opponents will help you avoid mistakes by picking up trends and tendencies in their play. It will also help you cause mistakes by them. Not paying attention has the opposite effect.

this could go on and on for every concept and principle, but everything in poker seems to revolve around mistakes.