Poker Strategy Info And Source:
💸 CASH INJECTION IS NOW LIVE: 👉 https://www.carrotcorner.com/cash-inj…
🎓 THE CARROT POKER SCHOOL is now LIVE 👉https://www.carrotcorner.com/school/
🛒 For poker courses and products 👉 https://www.carrotcorner.com/store/
🥇 For poker coaching 👉 https://www.carrotcorner.com/coaching/
Follow me on Twitch 👉 https://www.twitch.tv/carrot_corner
Follow me on Twitter 👉 https://twitter.com/Carroters1
📜 Video Description 📜
Doug Polk recently objected to a poker strategy tweet by Phil Galfond concerning whether to bluff or give up with the bottom of your range on the river. Of course this is a complex question but which of these high stakes crushers has the upper hand in the poker debate? In this video I give my take while using the dispute as an opportunity to tackle one of poker’s toughest strategic questions.
Source: YouTube
You should absolutely become a mediator. I think your reading of the situation is spot on.
when Doug gets bored with funny news, he should make a geek finer things club with you
13:11 has twitter committed a polarization error?
Damn that Mic Looks so awsome . 😮
Hey Pete, I’m looking for some private coaching. If you’re willing take on a student, please let me know where I can reach out to you.
Doug has fallen a lot.
"error, peter clarke is not a thing" LOL
I think the difference between both of them is their Main game and in headsup people are forced to play wide Ranges and will often have to defend some uncomfortable Calls on the river. But in 6max people will often get to a river Spot with way less snapfolds
What Galfond said is true, if you think/know a bluff won't work, due to signals or reads, then you shouldn't bluff even you should in theory.
I've seen Doug play in micro pools, and some of his plays are horrendous relative to the pool he is playing. A good 50nl reg for example would crush 50nl better than Doug could, even though Doug may be a better player in theory. That's Doug Polk's game, theory until the bitter end, even if it costs him money.
Even if his response you get a hint at him knowing what he said is wrong, "suck it up and fire that final bullet"… why would you have to suck it up if it's a good play to fire that final bullet?
It's very telling he said that at the end of his post.
Likely just being combative to Galfond's post to get eyes on him… which he's achieving
"You should only bluff if you think it's more profitable than checking and losing." <– Against capable opponents this is incorrect, and it even has a name in the literature; it's called 'unsafe subgame solving'. This basically involves maximizing your EV locally w/o worrying about what it does to the rest of your game tree. However since Phil clarified that against good players this kind of reasoning doesn't apply, technically he is correct. Now time to watch the rest of the video.