I won't quote it exactly because I'm sure everyone here has already seen it before. Basically it says you should play the way you would if you could see everyone's cards.

But what I don't understand is, how should you play if you can see everyone's cards? I guess you could consider two different scenarios. One in which everyone can see everyone's cards and another in which only you can see everyone's cards.

I am referring to Hold'em here. The way I see it, if everyone can see all the cards your strategy should be this: if your preflop hand has the highest probability of winning after there are 5 random cards on the board you should go all in, otherwise you should fold.

For example, let's say there are 6 players and they are dealt AQs, KJu, A7s, QTu, 95s, and Q7u. How should the betting proceed if everyone can see all the cards? My answer is AQs goes all in and everyone else folds. Am I wrong? If I'm right the Fundamental Theorem seems to be of little value.

If only you can see all the cards maybe one could make the case of value betting instead of going all in. But then the question becomes, what is the optimal value for a bet? If someone calls there is a good chance your hand will no longer be the favorite after the flop. Then what?

I mean I'm sure almost anyone could win if they were seeing everyone's cards, but the question is how do you achieve the maximum possible winnings in this situation?

Yeah the super users at ultimate bet really had a hard time playing profitable when they could see all the hole cards. I see your point.

Quick example: Suppose you had AK and you knew your opponent had KQ and the board was KT542. You would bet the maximum that you think villain would call with KQ. Let's suppose you decided the most he would call is $100. That would be the amount you'd bet. It would make no sense to only bet $75 if you knew villain would call $100. If you knew he had JT instead, and would only call up to $50 with that hand, you'd bet $50.
By knowing someone's actual hand, and their likely reactions to your bets, you can make "optimal" value bets that extract maximum value. You could do the opposite when bluffing. i.e. You'd bet the lowest amount that makes villain fold a better hand.

And to be clear, FTOP does not "tell you that you should play this way", it is just a means of quantifying mistakes after the fact. You don't know what your opponent has, so the FTOP can not really tell you how to play the hand.

lolwut?

Thanks Rusty, that's a simple point, but it clarifies a lot.

I never suggested you couldn't make money if you could see other player's cards. But thinking about the idea of seeing all cards made me realize it is actually not trivial to figuring out what strategy will win the maximum amount of money.

Maybe this hypothetical sheds no light on the actual game, but I find it an interesting thought experiment for thinking about theory/strategy.

I agree with OP. Never did make any sense to me.

Imagine a table where everybody played open handed.

Complete information.

There will still be a clear winner(s) over a decent sample. Does that mean you can play perfectly just because you know everybody's cards? Nope.

Just because I know your cards, doesn't mean I know how to extract the most, or make the best math play, or know how to make you fold.

That's the beauty of poker. =)

I think I disagree. Yes, at a table of mixed skills and psychological profiles, there will probably be a clear winner after a large sample. But this isn't because it's not *possible* to play optimally under these conditions, but just because people *won't personally be able to*

I think it would be fairly trivial to find a GTO solution to face up poker. It probably wouldn't even be very interesting (or useful)

you can shove with better hands that are vulnerable preflop and postflop, you are unbluffable, you can give people improper odds to call when you hold a monster and can calculate it perfectly, when they hit, you just don't pay

if everybody can see each other cards, you are just gonna shove when you have a better hand and fold when you don't preflop, only complete fishes would call raises preflop to suckout, because they just wont get paid off

and the only problem would be is to calculate the odds in 3+way allins, like for example in j7s vs 55 vs a6o, j7s is 37% favourite, which is a bit counterintuitive and hard to know without the forbidden soft, so people with the best memory, or calculation skills are gonna win.

and if there is the rake, the only winner is gonna be the pokerroom