The Prahlad Post

[innerpeace]

[ QUOTE ]

Also, his style worked in his prime two, three years ago when the games were much more passive. strategy has advanced a lot and now players are a lot better at estimating his ranges, etc.


[/ QUOTE ]

i would say that his strategy worked because he played far less fearlessly than his opponents at the time, especially as the game got deep. he probably made a ton of money against players taking a shot at the big ub game who were underolled and likely scared to commit their stack to a weak hand. i don't know that strategy per-se has improved, but eventually he started encountering equally fearless players who weren't afraid to call down light. and his real downfall is that he would go on serious tilt and make the wrong adjustments - like increasing his overbet bluffing frequency. i also think he ran bad at times - which really means that his opponents would hit big hands enough hands he couldn't push them off of.

[CrushinFelt]

The last paragraph is all that is useful actually. All AJ is saying is that P's range, when he does this, so often inludes the nuts, that it's a -GB play against that range given our range.

[Stinger88]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
fwiw I'm pretty sure poopers on PS is Prah

[/ QUOTE ]

what are his stats that you have on him filtered for between 3-6 players. if you post them, i will do my best to confirm as i have a ton of datamined hands on him.

thx,
dlpnyc21

[/ QUOTE ]

I only have 2k hands on him 3-6 handed on Stars, he's 30/21 with a river AF of 15(!). I have 8k hands on Prahlad from UB and he's 29/18, with similar street by street AF's except for river, which could just be high cuz of sample size. Also, his chat after a hand the other day reminded me of Prahlad's chat, and his hometown matches up.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1

One of the single best posts I've ever read on 2p2 buried in there:

[ QUOTE ]
let me clarify my question. it seems like a lot of you are saying something like: well you have to call here because top two pair is such a strong hand and if you just fold top two pair when P pushes you will get run over. so in other words you are using the hand strength here as a way to control how often we call when P pushes the river. i.e. call with AK or better, that way we call him x% of the time, if we call less than x% P will abuse us.

i know you don't think you are doing this but i'm pretty sure you are. because if we had KQ i don't think you would all say oh easy call P is bluffing. and yet most of you would agree that the vast majority of the time, P has either less than KQ or greater than AK.

it seems to me that this is sort of a game-theoretic approach. i.e. x% is optimal for calling P river push, and so i will call with AK or better to get to that x%. the problem of course is every scenario is different. THIS is the kind of thinking that makes P so successful, not the guys who are saying to fold. because when you think like this you are giving up already. you are not even trying to read him. you are just saying, my hand falls into the x% when i should call, i hope i win. he knows that you do this.

and that's why the x% is not going to work out for you. it's gonna seem like you're getting unlucky but you're not. it is by design that a good chunk of your x% calls will be against the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a very important piece of information which kind of makes this post useless is how often P pushes the river. Using GT to call here based on our hand strength rather than the frequency of P's pushes is very incorrect. I haven't read through the argument between MDMA and MM but maybe that was part of MM's point. What AJ is describing is just a matter of absolute hand strength and which is not what game theory is about.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of alex's post, which I don't think he made very clearly, is that when you're playing strategies like, "OK, I need to call with 10% of my hands, so I'll call with AK or better," Prahlad (or some other observant player) is going to be countering with strategies like, "OK, I have the nuts, I'll just go all-in because this fish has AK and is going to call."

I remember talking to Al about this post a lot at the time he made it, and I'm a little surprised it has such an esteemed position in 2+2 lore. As much as it is thought-provoking, it really only holds true when there's a good chance that your opponent has you on a narrower range than you think.

[Moonshine]

when i was playing the other day peachy specifically addressed poopers as "prahlad" and poopers responded so i mean, it's gotta be him

[TxRedMan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1

One of the single best posts I've ever read on 2p2 buried in there:

[ QUOTE ]
let me clarify my question. it seems like a lot of you are saying something like: well you have to call here because top two pair is such a strong hand and if you just fold top two pair when P pushes you will get run over. so in other words you are using the hand strength here as a way to control how often we call when P pushes the river. i.e. call with AK or better, that way we call him x% of the time, if we call less than x% P will abuse us.

i know you don't think you are doing this but i'm pretty sure you are. because if we had KQ i don't think you would all say oh easy call P is bluffing. and yet most of you would agree that the vast majority of the time, P has either less than KQ or greater than AK.

it seems to me that this is sort of a game-theoretic approach. i.e. x% is optimal for calling P river push, and so i will call with AK or better to get to that x%. the problem of course is every scenario is different. THIS is the kind of thinking that makes P so successful, not the guys who are saying to fold. because when you think like this you are giving up already. you are not even trying to read him. you are just saying, my hand falls into the x% when i should call, i hope i win. he knows that you do this.

and that's why the x% is not going to work out for you. it's gonna seem like you're getting unlucky but you're not. it is by design that a good chunk of your x% calls will be against the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a very important piece of information which kind of makes this post useless is how often P pushes the river. Using GT to call here based on our hand strength rather than the frequency of P's pushes is very incorrect. I haven't read through the argument between MDMA and MM but maybe that was part of MM's point. What AJ is describing is just a matter of absolute hand strength and which is not what game theory is about.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of alex's post, which I don't think he made very clearly, is that when you're playing strategies like, "OK, I need to call with 10% of my hands, so I'll call with AK or better," Prahlad (or some other observant player) is going to be countering with strategies like, "OK, I have the nuts, I'll just go all-in because this fish has AK and is going to call."

I remember talking to Al about this post a lot at the time he made it, and I'm a little surprised it has such an esteemed position in 2+2 lore. As much as it is thought-provoking, it really only holds true when there's a good chance that your opponent has you on a narrower range than you think.

[/ QUOTE ]

no.

[BLdSWtTRs]

I still doubt its Prahlad.

[Micturition Man]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1

One of the single best posts I've ever read on 2p2 buried in there:

[ QUOTE ]
let me clarify my question. it seems like a lot of you are saying something like: well you have to call here because top two pair is such a strong hand and if you just fold top two pair when P pushes you will get run over. so in other words you are using the hand strength here as a way to control how often we call when P pushes the river. i.e. call with AK or better, that way we call him x% of the time, if we call less than x% P will abuse us.

i know you don't think you are doing this but i'm pretty sure you are. because if we had KQ i don't think you would all say oh easy call P is bluffing. and yet most of you would agree that the vast majority of the time, P has either less than KQ or greater than AK.

it seems to me that this is sort of a game-theoretic approach. i.e. x% is optimal for calling P river push, and so i will call with AK or better to get to that x%. the problem of course is every scenario is different. THIS is the kind of thinking that makes P so successful, not the guys who are saying to fold. because when you think like this you are giving up already. you are not even trying to read him. you are just saying, my hand falls into the x% when i should call, i hope i win. he knows that you do this.

and that's why the x% is not going to work out for you. it's gonna seem like you're getting unlucky but you're not. it is by design that a good chunk of your x% calls will be against the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a very important piece of information which kind of makes this post useless is how often P pushes the river. Using GT to call here based on our hand strength rather than the frequency of P's pushes is very incorrect. I haven't read through the argument between MDMA and MM but maybe that was part of MM's point. What AJ is describing is just a matter of absolute hand strength and which is not what game theory is about.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of alex's post, which I don't think he made very clearly, is that when you're playing strategies like, "OK, I need to call with 10% of my hands, so I'll call with AK or better," Prahlad (or some other observant player) is going to be countering with strategies like, "OK, I have the nuts, I'll just go all-in because this fish has AK and is going to call."

I remember talking to Al about this post a lot at the time he made it, and I'm a little surprised it has such an esteemed position in 2+2 lore. As much as it is thought-provoking, it really only holds true when there's a good chance that your opponent has you on a narrower range than you think.

[/ QUOTE ]


It's strange how so many people come so close to accurately describing a game theory approach but then reveal that they don't really understand the game theory approach at all.

If you are successfully taking a GM theory approach Prahlad or anyone else can NOT exploit you. That is the whole definition of an optimal strategy.

In the specific case described here if Prahlad can successfully determine that you can only have AK in this spot, he does not improve his EV by making a massive overbet or a tiny underbet.

If you really can only have AK here you will simply be calling with only a % of your AK, and that % is determined by the size of Prahlad's bet.

I also agree with the point that most good players, when dealing with possible bluffs and in the absence of any particular read, use a thought process that is a lot more consistent with GT than they realize.

But anyway people can play however they want, and in practice everyone successfully uses a lot of exploitive strategy (e.g. "Nobody ever bluffs here, I fold.")

It just annoys me that people make dismissive remarks about game theory that are clearly not valid because they do not understand the subject. GT is, at least potentially, a far more powerful tool than most people realize.

[pete fabrizio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1

One of the single best posts I've ever read on 2p2 buried in there:

[ QUOTE ]
let me clarify my question. it seems like a lot of you are saying something like: well you have to call here because top two pair is such a strong hand and if you just fold top two pair when P pushes you will get run over. so in other words you are using the hand strength here as a way to control how often we call when P pushes the river. i.e. call with AK or better, that way we call him x% of the time, if we call less than x% P will abuse us.

i know you don't think you are doing this but i'm pretty sure you are. because if we had KQ i don't think you would all say oh easy call P is bluffing. and yet most of you would agree that the vast majority of the time, P has either less than KQ or greater than AK.

it seems to me that this is sort of a game-theoretic approach. i.e. x% is optimal for calling P river push, and so i will call with AK or better to get to that x%. the problem of course is every scenario is different. THIS is the kind of thinking that makes P so successful, not the guys who are saying to fold. because when you think like this you are giving up already. you are not even trying to read him. you are just saying, my hand falls into the x% when i should call, i hope i win. he knows that you do this.

and that's why the x% is not going to work out for you. it's gonna seem like you're getting unlucky but you're not. it is by design that a good chunk of your x% calls will be against the nuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a very important piece of information which kind of makes this post useless is how often P pushes the river. Using GT to call here based on our hand strength rather than the frequency of P's pushes is very incorrect. I haven't read through the argument between MDMA and MM but maybe that was part of MM's point. What AJ is describing is just a matter of absolute hand strength and which is not what game theory is about.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point of alex's post, which I don't think he made very clearly, is that when you're playing strategies like, "OK, I need to call with 10% of my hands, so I'll call with AK or better," Prahlad (or some other observant player) is going to be countering with strategies like, "OK, I have the nuts, I'll just go all-in because this fish has AK and is going to call."

I remember talking to Al about this post a lot at the time he made it, and I'm a little surprised it has such an esteemed position in 2+2 lore. As much as it is thought-provoking, it really only holds true when there's a good chance that your opponent has you on a narrower range than you think.

[/ QUOTE ]

no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I'm not being clear enough, and I'm not sure whether you're objecting to my interpretation of alex's post or my criticism of it (or both). Even though I'm pretty sure I know what al intended to convey, I obviously can't and don't want to speak for him. But I'll explain what I meant by the criticism anyway:

If the range of hands you could have in this spot is exactly the same as the range of hands that Prahlad thinks you could have, then you can use whatever metric you like to decide when to call the x% of the time that you need to call -- including looking at your watch, flipping a coin, using a random number generator, or yes even by looking at the strength of your hand.

If Prahlad's bet size dictates that you should call with your bluff-catching hands 50% of the time, it is completely irrelevant whether you call with AK 50% of the time and with KQ 50% of the time or with AK 100% of the time and KQ 0% of the time, assuming that you are equally likely to have either hand and that Prahlad can't narrow your range any further. The danger of the latter strategy (100% AK, 0% KQ) is only that if Prahlad actually does know whether you have AK or KQ by some means, he can exploit you by raising only his air hands when you have KQ and only his nut hands when you have AK.

In reality, a lot of people who pick the stronger part of their range to call a potential bluff end up getting owned -- but it's not because that practice is game-theoretically illegitimate, it's because their opponent has a much better sense of their range than they think.

[The White Rabbit]

[ QUOTE ]

If the range of hands you could have in this spot is exactly the same as the range of hands that Prahlad thinks you could have, then you can use whatever metric you like to decide when to call the x% of the time that you need to call -- including looking at your watch, flipping a coin, using a random number generator, or yes even by looking at the strength of your hand.

[/ QUOTE ]
Using your hand strength as a metric dominates any other option, how this isn't completely obvious is beyond me. Any other option is more exploitable (it weakens your calling range).