When 1 - Alpha Doesn't Apply
Posted by Phil Galfond
Video Player is loading.
This is a modal window.
The media could not be loaded, either because the server or network failed or because the format is not supported.
Resume Video
Start from Beginning
Watch Video
10
Loading 8 Comments...
Watched and saved for rewatch. I was actually watching some of your classics from way back this week thinking "Man, I wish PG did more theory vids", I am going to wish for it even more now ! Great stuff keep 'em coming.
btw, I found QY's vid on indifference to also be a good video on this topic, and somewhat compliments it with NL examples.
Great video. Not that this goes against the point of the video (indeed it backs it up), but is it not the case that using the MDF (1-alpha) as a simple, strict rule is never right, apart from in a river spot? If there are further streets to play, then bluffs have >0% equity, and so that changes the calculation from being as clean as MDF would make it seem. Further complications for the price of a previous street float, or a turn bluff having the added equity of sometimes winning with a bet on the river if called, and so on. The reason I ask is that some people quote MDF (1-alpha) as if it is a simple GTO rule, but that doesn't stand up to examination much more than facing a pre-flop raise in the blinds, and saying "I have 2-1 to call, so I have the odds to call."
Thank you!
I think MDF is an incredibly useful baseline to have in our minds. I think it's a great starting point to inform our decision-making process.
So, for example, if I'm facing a 1/3 pot cbet on 963ss in a 3bet pot HU, I know:
Okay 1-A is 75%. This is a board that is favorable for me, I'm not at a large range disadvantage (perhaps at an advantage), and it's a dynamic board, so I know my true optimal defense frequency will be higher than 75%. So maybe I'll guess it's 80-85%. (I don't know what the true answer is but it can't be too far from that)
You're right that there are many more factors than simply making a bluff not immediately profitable, but the factors work in both directions (they have equity when they check too), and with some practice and thinking, you can get quite good at figuring out roughly where you should be compared to 1-A.
There are a ton of spots that I've seen in solvers, by the way, where defense frequency is extremely close to 1-A.
Could it be said that their are other variables that should be calculated to arrive at 1-A so that we are not actually deviating from it but rather getting closer to it?
What's the software he's using in this video? I didn't hear it mentioned. Looks powerful.
Vision
Aren't you leaving out one important thingy..
Applying MDF before river streets has problem, because you have to account for future bets and that kills the calc.
I'm aware now, thanks to the video, that ranges also play a role.
Lets say on the river where MDF applies the most, our range does not support/does not have enough bluffcatchers to meet 1-alpha. Doesn't that mean that our range is structured wrongly?
Thinking now ahead, that would mean that GTO strategy would always have enough bluffcatchers to meet potsize bet requirements to defend?
GREAT video. I really got a lot out of it, especially as a microstakes player.
This is probably a very basic question but on a 754 two-tone board, shouldn't that absolutely hammer the BBs range? Still, the BTN is going to underfold overcards?
Without a very strong draw as the BTN, maybe NFD and blockers?, it sounds like a minefield to continue.
Be the first to add a comment
You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.