A GENERAL THEORY OF POKER
We don’t have a general theory of poker. By a general theory I mean a unified theoretical view that encompasses most, if not all, of the commonly accepted theoretical perspectives of the game.
All these theoretical perspectives are useful. No one of them is better than the others. Each is useful in a different aspect of the game.
At different parts of this book, we look at poker through different perspectives. You’ve already seen two examples of this.
In Chapter 8, on game selection, we looked at poker through the perspective that money flows from bad players to good players.
We used that perspective to identify games that involve many players putting a lot of money into the pot as profitable games.
Some poker players argue that the best games are those when the players are passive, preferably loose-passive, but also tight-passive.
The reason they come to that conclusion is that they are looking at poker through a perspective of strategy and deception.
A weak game of passive players does afford you more opportunity at using advanced strategies and deceptive plays, but that’s not the most important source of profit in poker.
It’s not a question of which perspective is superior to the other. It ’s a question of which perspective is more useful in helping to answer the question at hand.
In the case of game selection, the key variable is the amount of money available.
The money-flow perspective focuses on this key variable, and it is the preferable perspective to use when considering selection of a game.
In Chapter 9, on seat selection, we looked at the game with a different perspective. There the focus was on the point of view suggested by a strategy and deception perspective.
Most poker writers seem to look at seat selection through a prism of a partial information perspective.
One major difference in seat selection strategy which results from these different perspectives is in the case of maniacs.
A common recommendation is to sit with the maniac to your immediate right. I suggest the opposite, sit with him either on your immediate left or halfway across the table from you.
What is the reason for the difference?It’s because of the difference in focus from the two different theoretical perspectives.
If you use a partial information perspective, you’ll want him on your right to ensure you have as much information as you can get before you have to act.
There is nothing wrong with that except that we are talking about a maniac, someone who plays almost every hand and raises at every opportunity.
How much more information can you have?
You get very little extra information from having a maniac on your right, but having him on your left expands your tactical playing options tremendously.
Poker is a struggle among the players for the rights to the ante
This perspective has relevance in the early parts of the first betting round.
In Holdem we use blinds rather than antes, but the point of the perspective is that the game begins as a struggle for the initial money in the pot.
It’s a useful perspective in determining opening hand requirements, particularly in somewhat tight games and from early position.
Pick the Right Table / Picking a Seat / Theories of Poker / Betting Theory: The Odds
A Theory of Starting Hand Value
A Theory of Flop Play: Counting Outs and Evaluating Draws
The Dynamics of Game Conditions / Table Image / Player Stereotypes
Women and Poker / Spread-Limit Games / Double Bet on the End Games / Kill Games
Short-handed Games / Tournaments / No-limit and Pot-Limit Poker
