The Fundamental Theorem of Poker

[Jean-Guy]

The Fundamental theorem of poker is a concept by David Sklansky introduced in his book, The Theory of Poker (1978.) It is the cornerstone of poker and reads as follows:

Every time you play a hand differently than you would have played it if you could see your opponent’s cards, they gain.
And every time your opponents play their hands differently than how they would have played if they could see your cards, you gain.

So how does this theorem apply to poker in 2024? Here, I will just mention a four simple ramifications:

1. At any given time you should play your hand in the way you suspect your opponent likes the least. If he prefers zig play him zag.
2. At any given table you should adjust your style to what is most effective NOW at THIS table. At a Nit table you charge hard. Amongst a table ruled by a maniac, you play a broader range. Until you 3- and 4-bet him to hell.
3. Unlike Sklansky’s theorem you should not put your foe on a specific hand but on a range.
4. Ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus famously said: No man steps in the same river twice for it is not the same river, and you are not the same man.

This statement reflects the idea that life is in a constant state of flux, and nothing remains static. The same goes for poker and it demands that you are constantly navigating and negotiating which move is the best given the ever-changing context (mostly it would be a fold for even a LAG.)

These Four impacts is just what came into my mind. You may disagree, which I for the sake of progressive arguments prefer. You may have other ramifications. Or you may just don’t care (my hero, the late Lou Reed didn’t care for
sure.)

 

[dannystanks]

I agree with all this! This is what makes this game fun to play!

 

[sibkaz]

Impose your tactics and change them constantly) The main thing is to bluff less and throw it off in time)) I used to have a problem...

 

[infonazar]

All of this is correct and sounds very good, but without luck, nothing good will come of it. How can you maximise your chances of luck?
Perhaps just play for fun and don't complicate things

 

[Jean-Guy]

All of this is correct and sounds very good, but without luck, nothing good will come of it. How can you maximise your chances of luck?
Perhaps just play for fun and don't complicate things

True and not true😊In cash games you have 80% skills and 20% luck short term. In the long run it is all skills. Tournaments are said to have 80% luck and 20% skills. This is the reasons that not even the best players finsh ITM more than 20% of the times.
And luck is not just luck. The best players maximize their luck whereas the bad players don’t. To maximize luck you must have an accurate understanding of the table dynamics. I use to call this the topographic ocean. To navigate this ocean you need deep experience and well tuned instincts.

 

[Poker Orifice]

Tournaments are said to have 80% luck and 20% skills. This is the reasons that not even the best players finsh ITM more than 20% of the times.

False
If it were true, this is not why the best players ITM 20%. It has nothing to do with it. Faulty logic.

fwiw, the better regs. typically ITM ~15%

 

[eetenor]

The Fundamental theorem of poker is a concept by David Sklansky introduced in his book, The Theory of Poker (1978.) It is the cornerstone of poker and reads as follows:

Every time you play a hand differently than you would have played it if you could see your opponent’s cards, they gain.
And every time your opponents play their hands differently than how they would have played if they could see your cards, you gain.

So how does this theorem apply to poker in 2024? Here, I will just mention a four simple ramifications:

1. At any given time you should play your hand in the way you suspect your opponent likes the least. If he prefers zig play him zag.
2. At any given table you should adjust your style to what is most effective NOW at THIS table. At a Nit table you charge hard. Amongst a table ruled by a maniac, you play a broader range. Until you 3- and 4-bet him to hell.
3. Unlike Sklansky’s theorem you should not put your foe on a specific hand but on a range.
4. Ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus famously said: No man steps in the same river twice for it is not the same river, and you are not the same man.

This statement reflects the idea that life is in a constant state of flux, and nothing remains static. The same goes for poker and it demands that you are constantly navigating and negotiating which move is the best given the ever-changing context (mostly it would be a fold for even a LAG.)

These Four impacts is just what came into my mind. You may disagree, which I for the sake of progressive arguments prefer. You may have other ramifications. Or you may just don’t care (my hero, the late Lou Reed didn’t care for
sure.)

Nice share but unclear on #1 if I have the nuts why would I play the hand in a way that my Villain dislikes and therefore could fold and move on to the next hand?
As I am playing ranges and not hands I can only ever Zag vs part of the V's range- if my Zag is too extreme part of V's range will gain significantly from it

Maybe your first statement could be clearer on what it means to want to make your V uncomfortable and why it has value.

 

[Jean-Guy]

Agree with the range remark. GTO basic.
If you have the nuts you can still play the hand in a way the Villain dislikes. In this scenario slowplaying or minraising are both plausible options - i.e. against a LAG who wants action per se. However, if Villain is a calling station standard 3BB bets on all streets might extract max value. But here you are actually right since this non thinking Villain doesn’t dislike the raises (perhaps I am a little rusty here since I only play high stakes 6-max cash games where you meet zero calling stations.)
So thank you for pointing out this leak in #1👍 There may be more.