Ansky finds an old Prahlad Friedman hand recently resurfaced on the DC boards and gives his analysis.
DC shorts are short content bursts brought to you by DC Labs. Roughly 1/4 the length of standard videos, these shorts are designed to review single hands, concepts or ideas.Â You'll receive the most up to date content available and stay in touch with the latest andÂ greatest here at DC and the poker community at large. Â The more you post in the forums the more likely it is your post will be the inspiration for a future DC short!
Premium Subscribers can download high-quality, DRM-free videos in multiple formats.
Wow this is so great, I loved that 2p2 thread the first time I read it a couple of years ago. Alex Jacob's input was really amazing. I wish all DC Shorts were as cool as this one.
BTW, results did get posted deep in the original thread: hero called and lost to QJ, but I don't think that's all too relevant on a thread that was groundbreaking on stuff like GTO and leveling.
Time for a series on what the game was (and why) and how it went on being in the various eras?
I think that the time has come for some sort of a "historical" lecture on the online poker thing, could be very entertaining and instructional also, as, e.g., comparing the various countermoves we would try at the given common betting trends we have had is a smart way to deeply understand why you do some things in certain given conditions and some other things in other given conditions. Imo obv. Note to self: do NOT reach for the weed pipe in the early afternoon tomorrow, have to grind it!
and yes I was quick
If we assume that Prahlad is shoving QJ and bluffs on the river, would having KQ/KJ make it more of a call than having AK, since Hero would block some of Prahlad's QJ combos? (Still might be a fold)
Seems interesting that calling with TPGK would be more profitable, or at least less unprofitable, than calling with top two.
FWIW, I love how in the rap song he basically gives the answer to how he beats everyone so hard....
"they ain't big proponents of thinking NOT just in the moment but of the possible future problems sometimes comes tough to solve them."
GTO vs Levelling War in the rap lyrics, IMO.
Honestly, I don't really understand what you're getting at and I really have no idea what Alex Jacob is talking about.
Even if you believe his range is only QJ or something less than Kx, it doesn't mean just because you call with AK, you also have to call with Kx. You just decide how often you want to call and then choose to call with the top x% of hands. Depending on how often you think he might be bluffing, you might decide to call with KJ+, with AK+ or maybe with AA+. Of course, from a game theory perspective you should look at what odds he gets on his bluff and then choose your range so that he breaks even on his bluffs.
Frankly, to me it looks like Alex Jacob didn't understand game theory. He said "you are not even trying to read him" when all you do is employ game theory and just call with x% of hands. It sounds like he thinks you're losing when you give up on leveling and just play gto.
it is by design that a good chunk of your x% calls will be against the nuts.
I don't understand this at all. What design? Also, it seems to me that you could always just adjust x.
It sounds like he thinks you're losing when you give up on leveling and just play gto.
What AJ actually said is that you're losing when you give up on reading him and just play GTO. That's because GTO is only good against GTO opponents, and although it may be correct to call in this spot, the fact that AK is near the top of your range is not enough reason to do so.