As of November 2021, the APT Forum is closed to new posts. Like with many online forums, usage has decreased in recent years. All previous posts are still available.

Morton's Theorem (refuting part of Sklansky's Theorem)

1warlock
1warlock
edited June 2018 in General Poker Questions

Has anyone else heard of this theorem? It states that Sklansky's Theorem does not work for multiway pots all the time. Morton's Theorem states that in multiway pots, there are situations where an opponent folding correctly actually benefits you and instances where their chasing incorrectly reduces your expectations. It applies to both cash and MTT games equally - anytime you are facing loose opponents. Since many of the questions posed on this forum seem to relate to sub-optimal play and loose opponents, I think this is a particularly interesting concept.

I'd be interested to hear what other's think about this idea and most importantly, what they think the best counter-strategy would be to combat these effects. Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry for the theorem (too long to post directly). I'll try to get some other links as well.

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

Comments

  • 1warlock
    1warlock
    edited June 2018

    Anyone? Anything? You'd think that people would be a bit more interested in proven exceptions to Sklansky's Fundamental Theory of Poker. After all, the site uses Sklansky' FTOP as the basis for calculating Poker IQ, right? We're all training here so this has value to us all I'd think.

    Added: there is very little material I can find on Morton or his theorem. If anyone knows any sources that continued the discussion after Morton died, I'd appreciate the direction. If you are a theory-geek like me, this is really cool stuff and seemingly forgotten about since 1997.

  • highfive
    highfive

    yeah @1warlock it makes total sense to me as I see this every time i go to the tables. We have discussed a hand i played like this. I raise KK ep+1 4x. Villain calls with 43o, an incorrect call. Draws out to a 44333 boat and cracks my KK. Had he folded correctly. I win. Since he called incorrectly. I lost. So a fold is +ev for me but some portion of hero's EV is lost with a call over the long run. In the hand he retains his 16,6% equity with the call and finishes with 100%. But with folding he relinquishes his equity to me. That's heads up too. Would be true for multiway also. When the two middle players fold their equity is divided among the remaining players according to their specific holdings. Calling incorrectly reduces Hero's EV because although calling in correctly, Villain hits the gutter anyway sometimes. Referencing the wikipedia example.
    But I would say I still want the villains to call incorrectly because most of the time the gutter will not come in. Net +EV.

  • 1warlock
    1warlock
    edited June 2018
  • rainmaker314
    rainmaker314

    I believe Sklansky's theorem holds, his theory is that if you played the game with the cards showing, you win when your opponents make mistakes. It is no limit hold em. So in my opinion, if player A with AdAh raised 3x pre-flop both player B and player C would be wrong in calling the bet. If they could see the cards and know that player A had AA, they would both fold. If they call then Player A wins. The flop starts the process over. If the flop comes as you stated Th7h2c and everyone can see all of the cards. Player A would bet pot or more, player A could bet the right amount to insure he has an edge 5, 10 or 100%, if player B or player C call they lose according to Sklansky. On the turn it starts all over again. If all the cards are face up Player A becomes the house/Casino. That is how all of the big buildings and beautiful pools have been built in Las Vegas. I am not sure but I believe it is about a 3 percent house advantage that built them all.

  • 1warlock
    1warlock

    @rainmaker314 said:
    I believe Sklansky's theorem holds, his theory is that if you played the game with the cards showing, you win when your opponents make mistakes. It is no limit hold em. So in my opinion, if player A with AdAh raised 3x pre-flop both player B and player C would be wrong in calling the bet. If they could see the cards and know that player A had AA, they would both fold. If they call then Player A wins.

    Morton showed that while each individual action may be wrong, the collective actions turn out to be correct. This is why he termed it implicit collusion. If the players could see the cards and were actually working together (to split the profits), then the incorrect call still helps the correct call by disproportionately redistributing the best hands equity. Sklansky said that all incorrect calls help the player with the best hand. Morton showed that in multiway pots, this is actually not always the case.

Sign In to comment.