blonde poker forum

Poker is getting younger, cleverer, duller and much, much richer

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10281315


And apparently they have on the radio now as well!

 

Good article!

What is  Morton's Theorem ??????

It's here. Read, then take a headache tablet. Then two more headache tablets. It could be good, it could be utter tosh, it's hard to follow to be honest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morton's_theorem

it's basically to do with implicit collusion that nearly always occurs in loose FLHE games, basically you sometimes want your opponent to make a correct fold.

doesn't only apply to FLHE.

sklansky explains it well in theory of poker. basically whereas HU you always want your opponents to make an incorrect move, sometimes in a multiway pot you want 1 opponent to make a correct fold to increase your equity in the pot

Sorry yes its strictly to do with multiway pots, however the most common occurrence of its discussion is FLHE. At least that's where i always saw it applied.

Another shocking example of your dress sense in that Economist article Flushy ;)

lol shut it Raab

:D

ok, so IIRC this example should explain the theorem.

3 handed tikay's hand has a 55% chance of winning, my hand has a 30% chance and flushy's 15%.

now tikay makes a small bet. if the correct play from flushy (if he could see everyone's cards) was to pass then I would normally want him to call here.

however in some cases I actually want him to make the correct play and pass.

for this to be true I must hase the correct pot odds to make the call AND my equity in the pot must increase.
so if I have the odds to call and after the call my chance of scooping the pot is now 40% to tikays 60% I want flushy to play correctly.

I think this is the reason you normally see it in FL rather then PL and NL; the smaller bets in realation to the pot size are more likely to give the correct pot odds.

also there's no reason to apply this only to HE, it works equally in all games.

the theorem NEVER applies in heads up pots where you never want an opponent to make a correct play

Thanks for your responses.

Don't often see it mentioned on the PHA boards ;D

so what web site do think they are talking about there then? unless they are reading robs diary :D

I think there is a big error in this, yes Annie Duke has won a few million but when compared to the men I doubt she is anywhere near the same league.

Also clearly a gap in the market for DTD to start to running some poker classes...

My guess would be it adds up to 4

Ahh, the old 3 + 3.

Link not working for anyone else?

Seems fine for me. Good article.

Thanks for explaining the theory guys. Still took a couple of reads for me to sort of get my head around it!

Argh can't get it. Cant read 3+3 forums either on either computer :S. Any possible explanations?

Which link? try going to the ecnomonist home page and search for 'poker' should be the first result that comes up.