What is "perfect poker"

What is "perfect poker" I see people saying they played "perfect poker" all the time, I think jamie gold said it after he wone the wsop what is this "perfect poker"

Barry Greenstein discussed the concept of 'perfect' poker briefly in Ace on the River: essentially, he says that 'perfect' poker is the way you would have played if you'd known your opponent's downcards. If you could see what they held, you'd be able to make the 'perfect' play each time.

He makes the point, however, that 'perfect' poker and 'correct' poker aren't always the same thing. Because you don't know exactly what your opponent is holding, you're basing your decisions on incomplete information. You can usually come up with one (or more) 'correct' plays based on this incomplete information, but these may not always be the same as the perfect play.

I sincerely doubt, based on that definition, that Jamie Gold played 'perfect' poker to win the WSOP. I highly doubt he even played correct poker all the time - though he obviously played it often enough to win. He was probably just using the term flippantly.

OZ, i think you hit the nail right on the head...

since joining in cardschat, every single one of your posts are amazing. if i were to answer this question it would be about 2 sentences long.

but you, decide to make it 2 paragraphs...

well done and good luck


as for the question:

philthy I think also gave a great response.

Greenstein’s notion is based on the Fundamental Theorem of Poker, but I am sure most of you already knew that. The Fundamental Theorem of Poker, which follows, was introduced in The Theory of Poker by David Sklansky, first copyrighted in 1987.

Every time you play a hand differently from the way you would have played it if you could see all your opponents cards, they gain; and every time you play your hand the same way you would have played it if you could see all their cards they lose.

Conversely, every time opponents play their hands differently from the way they would have if the could see all your cards, you gain; and every time they play their hands the same way they would have played if the could see all your cards, you lose.

In No Limit Hold 'em Theory and Practice, Sklansky goes on to say, “Note that we use the term "mistake" in a specific and somewhat peculiar sense. We don't mean that you played badly, or that a more skillful player would have played differently. We just mean that you played differently than you would have if you could have seen your opponent’s hand"...

Following with..."The fundamental Theorem of Poker highlights the value of hand reading and deception. One of your goals when you play no limit hold 'em is to try to deduce your opponent’s holding while disguising your own."


Indeed, if we could all play this way we would be running a perfect game, but most of us make mistakes. To me the perfect game is one in which I am fully engaged, über observant (of my opponents, the flow of the game, the action or lack there of), and making more correct decisions than my opponent is making. This usually will result in a win. A perfect game, I think is elusive, but well worth working toward.

Yep, that'd be the definitive erm... definition.

What I find interesting about the way Greenstein's puts it is that he clearly distinguishes between 'perfect' and 'correct' play. I'm sure Sklansky did too. But Greenstein's book had pretty pictures so I read that first, and that's what stuck in my head .

Anywho, point is that the perfect play is something we can work out afterwards. But while we're actually in a hand, is it practical be thinking you can make the perfect play?

By definition, you can't. It'd be nice if we could, and sometimes we'll stumble upon it either by chance or with a great read. But in general, it's neither possible nor practical - there's just no way (within the rules, at any rate) to do it.

Instead, you should be focussed on making the correct play for the situation, given the information you have.

Which is why posting results in the hand analysis section changes the answers you get: it changes the analysis from determining a correct play (of which there could be many) to determining the single perfect play.

It's being able to identify a correct play that will help you next time you're in a hand. Being able to work out the correct play is also by far the harder skill to master. Gawd knows I'm still pretty average at it .

Good points and I'd bet Grenstien would make it easier to understand. (Still warps my mind a bit everytime I read it.) I never read any of his work (yet), but I admire what he does with his poker winnings.

traditional Hold 'em poker for me... (not online and with strangers)

Last days I am really asking the same question. May be not exactly the same, but very simillar. How to play perfect poker? You know all those strategies, how to play GOOD poker. Like ... you have to raise or re-raise with AA, KK, QQ, JJ, AK, AQ ... so I play it like this and usually some fool calls my raise or sometimes all-in with hand like Q2 suited or 67 offsuited. And then the poker god dosen't look at me and more times stands behind my opponent. And I believe, that I did everything right ... but still I loose.

So, I really want to repeat the question? How to play perfect poker? How the well known pokerstars play their on-line tournaments?

You can play perfectly, make all the correct decisions and still lose. Thats the nature of gambling. Winning any one specific hand has nothing to do with the way you played it, but long term it has every thing to do with the way you play. Lets say you do have AA preflop, and manage to get all your money in the middle against someone with Q2 suited. You will be roughly a 85% favorite to win the pot. You made the correct play, got your money in good and thats all you can do. 15 times out of 100 you'll still lose, but and the end of the year the person with the AA will have won money, while the Q2 person will have lost.

Don't be results oriented.

^^^^This is what I'm thinking as well. Perfect play refers to making correct decisions for the proper mathematical/theory based reasons, is how I interpreted it. Which is what most of y'all are saying here too (I think, it's early). Doesn't mean an immediate win, but gives better odds of success over the long haul while still not guaranteeing anything if one doesn't:
A: Play opponents you can beat or
2: Live long enough to be on the statistical good side of 'long term'

Maybe.

Not quite - the idea is that there's a difference between correct play and perfect play. Sometimes the two overlap, but you can't know that while you're in the hand.

There's an example in that Absolute hole card schomozzle that illustrates it - the whole "10-high on the river" thing.

If you've got nothing but 10 high and your opponent is betting into you on the river, unless you've got some amazing read the correct play would almost always be to fold.

If you could see your opponent's hole cards though, and you could see that they only had 9-high, then the perfect play would actually be raising. If they fold, you weren't getting any more money anyway, and if they try to bluff you back, so much the better.

This is probably getting bogged down in semantics... point is, perfect play is a retrospective concept - by definition, unless you're cheating you can only find out what the perfect play was after the hand is finished. Finding the correct play while you're in a hand should be what you're most concerned about.

Rainsoaked does make an interesting point though: even the perfect play won't win every time.

I'm going to have to disagree with the Sklansky/Greenstein definition of perfect poker. It's incomplete because there's more to poker than just the cards.

I say perfect poker is how you'd play if you knew your opponent's down cards AND how they'd react to your play.

For example:

Preflop: You and your opponent both have 10xBB. You have 23o in the BB, and your opponent has A5o in the SB. It folds to him, and he limps. Correct play here seems to be to check.

Flop: KhJd8c.

You both have garbage. He checks. Now what is the right play here? In general, I'd say the correct play is to bet. But if you knew your opponent was very aggressive, it might be a mistake. He could bluff over the top all-in, and you are left without any option but to fold. You could always shove all-in first, but there's no guarantee he's not going to make a huge call. To make the right play, you have to know exactly how he's going to react. If you knew he would bluff all-in versus a 1-3BB bet and make a huge call versus any bet 6-9BB, then perfect poker would be to bet 4-5BB to get him to fold.

I agree with you, Oz, and the poster above me, to a large extent. And Effexor, also, but we might be getting lost in words here. The OP mentioned online power players. These guys might be be playing "winning poker" but I'm thinking that's another concept and another flavor.
Winning poker is most likely a combination of everything mentioned before. Plus some stuff nobody's brought up yet.
I'm happy to stand corrected on the perfect/correct scale, though. Makes sense to me.

Technically Sklansky's definition of perfect poker is correct, but I think there are also a lot of psychology elements in there.

For example, even if I know I am beat because I know you have top pair, I can still bluff you out of the pot because of the image I built, and the terrible stare I give, etc.

Recently people are doubting that whether certain accounts are rigged on Absolute Poker. Those accounts are (doubted to be) able to see your hole cards. And if you look at their playing logs... are they playing perfect poker? Their play is so abnormal (like infinite river aggression factor) and now they might actually get caught. That's far from perfect.