A general (ie "Fundamental") theorem is proven when it is shown to be true for all cases. If it is very easy to prove, then go ahead. If you are just citing specific cases as support for a general conclusion, I got news for you: I can prove the fundamental theorum of arithmetic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamenta ... arithmetic
is true for any number of integers, and that doesnt mean a thing.

Maybe Aisthesis touched on it when he wrote ><., which mathematically stated some system for the optimal time to bluff or value bet or something.

It was way over my head but might be of interest if you can find it/someone link it/ PM him.

Molina

I'd like to note for the record that I don't actually doubt the validity of the FTP, i live by it. I'm just sayin.
Just sayin!!!

I didn't know you were being so anal about it.

It is not true in all cases, it can't be shown in a general sense.

It is just Sklansky stroking his ego.

There is a thorough discussion about the FTOP in Andrew C. Prock's blog, with the conclusion that one can not solve any actual poker problem with the FTOP.

is the link to this blog entry.

That's pretty much self-evident, obviously since you can't see your opponent's cards, any decisionmaking involving making correct decisions based on them is impossible, and since your opponents don't know your cards, vice versa.

Edit: That discussion is topical and varied, but not precisely thorough. I personally think of FTOP as a way to describe theoretically perfect play, that is, play that delivers the most winnings over time. That, as pointed out in the discussion, is obviously not "correct" play, which is the decision, based on all information you have, that delivers the most winnings over time. The rest of that discussion is a war between slogan monkeys and fanboys.