# David Malka

119 points

sweet video, loved the format. good balance to it

### July 24, 2017 | 7:30 p.m.

minute 25. If you assume OOP will let you realize your SD value, then you are playing against a passive player. If he is passive, why not just min bet and deny his equity?

### April 12, 2017 | 7:15 p.m.

Comment | David Malka commented on 1-Alpha

Would love to see another video that expands on your last and imo most important part of his video. tailoring our best sizing to 2x to make a bad bluff into a good bluff.

### March 14, 2017 | 8:36 p.m.

Is there a quick equation that we can use to solve for geometric bet sizing (using uniform %s of pot to get all in by the river)? In the past I have just done approximations to do this but there has got to be a better way.

Thanks!

### March 8, 2017 | 9:08 a.m.

Time for a "Ben Sulsky becomes top winner at 2/5 zoom" challenge. Great vid.

What are the problems we can encounter when mixing different sizings into a strategy? What first comes to mind is placing too many types of hands into one sizing where our strategy no longer contains any semblance of balance.

### Aug. 30, 2016 | 5:47 p.m.

In regards to having 10 value bets and 10-12 bluffs when check raising flops in this example, are you using similar ratios on the turn (~1:1)?

### Aug. 26, 2016 | 6:20 p.m.

How do you find yourself controlling your frequencies, and placing your backdoor hands in both betting and check raising ranges? I'm always paranoid im putting too many combos in one action.

### Aug. 25, 2016 | 4:52 p.m.

love this video

could you expand on your thoughts when you mention at minute 5 "our ranges are symmetrical, but hes putting in more money, so we can play a simple calling strategy. The bottom 5-7% of his range doesn't make any money."

You go on to say that if we chose a 4-bet strategy, he would have to stack off around 10%. How did you arrive to 10%

Lastly, you dont really comment on your check raise sizing. How do you go about differentiating between a 3.5x sizing and a 4.5x sizing?

### Aug. 3, 2016 | 10:42 p.m.

33:24: Can you further elaborate on your reasons for folding turn here? Given his stats it doesn't seem unreasonable for him to have A3-A4s and some XXcc in his barreling range. Possibly even 33-44 although heavily discounted

### May 20, 2016 | 7:09 p.m.

At 11:35 you say you'd like to grow the pot geometrically on the turn, and advocate betting roughly the same amount on then and river rather than what happened ( near pot on river). How does this increase the EV of our range?

### May 5, 2016 | 5:26 a.m.

Comment | David Malka commented on Contextual Mapping

these videos are much different than all of the content on the site. keep it up

### May 2, 2016 | 6:37 p.m.

Great video, love the live play format and hope to see more of it (although the theory vids are the best on the site).

### April 25, 2016 | 6:01 p.m.

minute 28 with 88, on Q66, you said its an easy fold on the Jack turn even without ICM implications. Assuming no ICM implications, wouldn't this normally be a call on the turn? We don't block AK, AT, KT, K9, 9T. Given thats 78 combos, at least 2/3 of which are interested in playing this way at a high frequency, were ahead of a large portion of his barreling frequency on the turn. Also, this is probably at the higher end of PPs we flat in the SB.

### April 22, 2016 | 5:33 p.m.

solid as usual.

At minute 8:35 with Td8d bottom left, you mention that a large part of your range benefits from having strong hands also in that range. If you were to look closely at this spot and come to the conclusion that the highest EV size for this hand would be one that differs from the size you currently used, would you deviate from your original sizing and pick the higher EV size? I'm trying to reconcile two competing thoughts when picking a size here-- the first being the size you choose, which offers protection to other parts of range, and the second being the theoretical, highest EV size.

### April 15, 2016 | 9:29 p.m.

I like the use of circular logic to indicate what strategy we should use. Im not sure im perfectly visualizing the implications of this though. Can you elaborate a bit more?

### April 13, 2016 | 6:43 p.m.

at minute 5:50, you mention that with 9d8d, the only justification for calling 98 is that you block the straight and some sets/2 pairs, but you don't need to call this specific hand to make him indifferent with his bluffs. Thus, although you satisfy one criteria to bluff catch, you haven't satisified the others. Could you list the other criteria needed for bluff catching? I guess this would make a good summation of the video thus far. Thanks!

### April 13, 2016 | 6:35 p.m.

damn good video, definitely need way more of this. Top 3 I've seen lifetime.

### April 6, 2016 | 4:32 a.m.

11 minutes, do you ever mix in an overbetting strategy on the turn? Its a board that smacks your sb cold-calling range. Would an OB allow us to improve the EV of our range?

Minute 38 with 64s facing a river all in, you said its a pretty easy fold. Can you go more into detail about your calling range that prevents you from being exploited?

### April 1, 2016 | 8:53 p.m.

Not sure why 4 people liked this comment. It lacks analysis, and is results oriented.

First hand- Why is it better in practice to bet 10-11 bbs? You give no reason why. Why do we want to set up a turn shove? Why is this a better option than maximizing the EV with our range with a smaller size?

3rd hand- why is the river raise suicidal? If we have some overpairs that check back the flop, then we can have a raising range that includes bluffs on this run out. Easy to over-do, but by no means suicidal.

5th hand- "PF is whatever" sounds like a comment you'd see from twoplustwo thread back in 2005.

### March 30, 2016 | 6:10 p.m.

Comment | David Malka commented on Bluffcatchers

All this makes sense, except "On the inverse side if the range has fewer possible bluffs overfolding becomes less valuable to a max exploit strategy," which is a bit hazy to me. Can you comment further on this?

### March 23, 2016 | 6:10 p.m.

@cloud We have to factor in our opponent having blockers to our value range. If we are trying to make A2 indifferent to calling a bet here, we only have around 21-23 value combos, allowing us to have a little less than 10 bluff combos

### March 21, 2016 | 5:11 p.m.

definitely top 3 videos you've made. The trend with a lot of these instructors is to complicated the game tree in order to increase expectations. Nice to see the other side of the road in a clear manner. Keep these up.

### March 15, 2016 | 6:08 a.m.

Minute 26 with KK, you say your range will be missed FDs and over pairs. Some of your FDs won't be interested in bluffing river as they block IPs folding range. How do you go about picking which bluffs you want to use in this river spot?

### March 9, 2016 | 5:14 a.m.

Interested in deeper analysis on the last two hands, QTo and AKo

### March 4, 2016 | 6:25 p.m.

love the PIO videos. Keep it up.

### March 2, 2016 | 5:40 p.m.

Comment | David Malka commented on Big \$162 (part 3)

Minute 631 with Th6h on J72hhh you say you are going to check c/c your range. Why not have a c/r range?

Last hand on Td8d9d, do you think mixing in a 1/4-1/3 pot cbet would allow us to improve our expectation? This hand seems like it benefits most with a small sizing.

### Feb. 26, 2016 | 3:24 a.m.

thank you for answering that, makes perfect sense. wp

### Feb. 23, 2016 | 6:26 p.m.

great vid as usual.

Second hand with AQ as bluff on river, you mention that you want 2 sizings-- a smaller 1/2 pot sizing with bluffs that dont block 2 pairs, and an overbet sizing with bluffs that have worse 2 pair blocking value than the first sizing. Ive been trying to structure the hierarchy of bluffs when using 2 sizings, and my initial thought was to use bluffs with the best blockers (and thus highest EV) with the larger sizing, since they net more money than the other bluffs. Is there anything wrong with this line of thought, and would this contradict the logic in choosing your bluffs for this hand?