The Prahlad Post

[75s]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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).

[/ QUOTE ]

Your hand strength is relative (except when the nuts).
Thus strength is determined by pot odds AND the villain's betting frequencies. You can't just say, I call with 2 pair cause two pair is >50% vs a random hand on this board. The range you must assume for your oppenent widens and tightens depending on how often he makes this play. Remember, you're not calling and getting show the nuts. That's results thinking. You're calling a hand range. What Prah was/is good at is widening hero perception of his range in smaller pots, early in the match. Notice how he'd "eventually bust someone". He's led you to call lighter when stack sizes are inflated. His bluffs had good implied odds.

[The White Rabbit]

I'm obv. talking about hand strength in the absolute sense (using your own range as the metric, not the board, which would off course be silly!). On each board/after every action sequence, you have a certain handrange. All I'm saying is that always calling w/ your top x% dominates always calling top 0.5x% + calling 1.5x-0.5x% 50% of the time.

The exact % should (off course) be a function of pot odds/villains betting frequencies/perceived ranges, recent history, psychology, etc.

[ocdscale]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't understand AJo's post:
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is not criticizing people saying: "I have AK, he just overbet, I need to call this x% of the time, I rolled the dice, I call."
He is criticizing people saying: "He just overbet, I need to call x% of the time, I have AK, it is in the top x% of my range, I call."

In other words, the second player always calls with AK because he knows he needs to call x%, and AK is in the top x% (because he reasons that if he doesn't call with AK, what can he call with?). That's what's exploitable.

[The White Rabbit]

No, it isn't. Provided that x is the optimal frequency for calling P's river push in this exact spot (this board, given this action and this history), calling w/ the top x% of your range dominates using any other random calling range.

[phiphika1453]

[ QUOTE ]
i haven't read most of the responses but the first few players seem to advocate a call... to me this is a clear fold. Let's go through the hand:

Mahatma cold calls on a board of KT3 rainbow. This is a draw or this is a good pair or this is a good two pair or this is a set. Possible draws: JQ.

Turn 5 completeing the rainbow. Mahatma bets pot. This is a draw or this is a good pair or this is a good two pair or this is a set. Possible draws: JQ. Now hero calls. Mahatma puts hero on a set or AK.

River: A. Mahatma goes all in. Mahatma puts hero on: a set or AK, hence, two pair or a set. Mahatma thinks: There's no way he will fold two pair or a set against me, I am a crazy lag. I will overbet all in. Possible missed draws: none. Mahatma either has a set or JQ here, at best you are chopping. To me, clear fold.

Mahatma may be a crazy lag but if you can't differentiate between situations in which bluffs make any sense and bluffs don't make any sense, you are the reason Mahatma is a rich man.

Edit: now I have read through more of this thread, and the logic I anticipated that my short post overlooked has been thrown out there: Mahatma might think that hero will go through precisely this logic and bluff on this board because hero will say mahatma expects a call and thus fold.

I don't care. I think that is bad logic on this board. This board has very few draws... It is not a scary board... that's the point.

For someone that pointed out a board when there were four to a higher straight and a flush and Mahatma all in value bet the lower straight, it is a differenty situation. There, the board is so draw heavy that it is a "scary board." Mahatma knows the opponent will value bet HIM all in if he has the higher straight or flush so he says well I might as well let him make a "big call" with a set and get some value from my low straight. On that board, that makes sense. On this board, this makes no sense.

Mahatma is a crazy lag but crazy lags that are smart don't often try to push people off top two or sets, especially when he knows, as Ajo (i forget was it him?) pointed out, people are just playing percentages against him and top two is "usually good."

[/ QUOTE ]


This is a post by fslexduck in the same thread, awesome post.


PS. fslexduck (dyslexic f*ck) this damn screen name makes me think I am a dyslexic f*ck, lol.

[SirFelixCat]

As a small stakes player, I just read thru both this and the AK thread...

I long to be at that level of thinking. God bless you fellas...


I'm drinking milk!