No, for unspecified reasons they are being kept secret.

Lets not derail another thread with this graph bs

Unfortunately you are correct, the book indeed contains the wrong answer for this exercise.

I just received the book. Here lot of people talk about mistakes and other bad stuff. So when i read i know i have to use my own head but how many erros is there. Can you list the biggest so we can correct them?

For those of us who have bought the book could the above error be corrected in its entirety here so that we can correct it in our copies?

just read the whole book, and i think that for a NL100 player its a very good addition, some parts of the book are very interesting but little to short i would guess, but still for ~20$ its a very good choice

I am curious about this too. Did anyone ask for the screen name?

Multiple people, multiple times iirc.

Do you know where can i find some info about author? I didnt find anything interesting.

No idea.

Our books go through a through review and proofing process where both David Sklansky and myself go over the book. In fact, in this process, I personally read Analytical No-Limit Hold 'em five times. So this error should have been picked up.

Unfortunately, it always seems that errors like this do sneak through, and we'll get it corrected in the next printing. But there are 6 combinations for any pair, so TT+ should be 30 not 15 combinations, and the total number of combinations should be 36 + 20 + 30 = 86 instead of the computed 71.

Best wishes,
mason

This should have been picked up. But the example and conclusion is correct.

I don't agree. On page 198, going to the notation that you suggest would make the equations much more difficult to typeset and then read.

This is really misleading. Specifically, the section on three-betting is 50 pages in length. So there is a lot of material there. Specifically:

Part Five: Three-Bet Pots 185
.....Introduction 186
.....Dealing with Getting Three-Bet 188
..........Getting Three-Bet Out of Position 189
..........Getting Three-Bet in Position 193
.....Three-Betting and Cold-Calling 196
..........Three-Betting and Cold-Calling in Position 196
..........Three-Betting Out of Position/Blind Defense 200
.....Post-Flop Play in Three-Bet Pots 205
..........Having Position in Three-Bet Pots 205
..............Being the Caller 205
..............Being the Aggressor 215
..........Being Out of Position in Three-Bet Pots 218
.....The Squeeze-Play 229
..........Being the Squeezer 230
..........Getting Squeezed 231

This is not a 2,000 page book. Those topics may be appropriate for another book.

Mason

I'm interested in a ebook version, it will be available?

Book arrived, only 50 or so pages through but already noted a couple of errors that you wouldn't expect to make it to print. Luckily - I don't care for such things as I don't buy poker books for beautiful and immaculately edited prose. I buy them for substance so far I'm pretty happy, so as long as the errors don't get in the way of detailing the underlying concepts I am happy.

You don't think that consistency of notation is important? I would strongly disagree.

In addition, you can change your standard so that typesetting this stuff is simpler. Use the notation that Chen and Ankenman used in future. Instead of using special typesetting for equations, use brackets! I'd also consider reducing the amount of white space around your equations.

The poker book market has moved on from the eighties where any math in a book was a shocking thing.


Again, I'd like to respectfully disagree. The standard in the game as played on the net is to 4bet small. If there is a space limitation, then the version you discuss is the version in use surely?

Secondly, the book is called "Analytical NLHE", and the 3bet/4bet/5bet game is possibly the most mathematically solvable part of online NLHE. It should have been possible to talk about playing two scenarios:

1. BB vs BTN raise with 20% and 35% PFR
2. BTN vs CO raise with 15% and 30% PFR.

You could run a discussion and the math in four pages IMO. Certainly less than ten pages. Same would go for adjustments when deep.

Of course, here, I'm talking about the line between a good book and a great book. It remains the fact that you have produced a very good book. The discussion of ranges is ground-breaking in the poker book market. The discussion of 3betting is also good.

yeah

Our books go through a thorough review process, but it always seems like a few errors slip through. So if you notice any type-os or other errors, let us know what they are and it will help us get them fixed in a future printing.

Best wishes,
Mason

Don't you pay people to do that? Fwiw - the errors I've noticed are not so much typos but the kind you get when you run a spell check over a document and get it to automatically fix words without checking the context they are being used in so you end up with 'opponent shows' instead of 'opponent shoves'

Like I said - they don't bother me and I'd rather spend my time making notes about the useful concepts the book is teaching me instead of making notes about grammar.

No.

mm

We usually deal with addition here at 2+2. Multiplication is a relatively new concept...blah, blah, blah.

I have read the book almost through, and liked it very much.

However, I am puzzled about the chart that is given in on page 198 (Part Five: Three-Bet Pots).

1.) The figures that are given in the last column seem to be slightly incorrect. For instance in the third line where we have r = a and t = c: the equation given above in this case simplifies to $2.015*0.51 - $1000 = $27.65, not $27.18.

2.) The figures that are given in the column 'Our Equity When All-in' confuse me. Again in line 3, where villain 4-bet shoves with 15% of all hands and we call with 5%. Our equity in this case is given to be 51%, shouldn't it be somewhat higher? How have these numbers been calculated?

Thanks for any help.

Has Mason ever gone into detail on 2+2's editing process? Could someone link me to it if so? I am extremely interested to learn about it.

I agree it isn't even close to on par with NLHTAP and TOP but even with the small errors the book has it's still a HUGE difference between Harrington on Online (the other NL book published by 2+2 last year) and Thomas Bakker's book and it's still a HUGE difference between Thomas Bakker's book and Let There Be Range, Bobbo's Bible and other $1000 books that should have costed 10$ given their quality. I haven't bought Shootaa's book but a friend of mine who plays medium stakes for a living bought both Shootaa's Blue Book and this book. He told me Thomas Bakker's book was much better and Shootaa's book was very disappointing. He was shocked a much cheaper book was much better than a book that costed thousands of dollars.

The only thing I can complain about ANLH is that the chapter about playing against SS is already outdated (but it isn't the author's fault that the big poker sites raised the min buy in, probably that chapter was already written when poker sites raised the min buy in).

Hi,

I'm no native speaker so please excuse some problems with my text. I really had no expectation what this book really is about, because I know that a lot of authors exeggearete what their book can provide.

I will start with my conclusion and explain in detail how i came to it. The book handles some interesting topics, but some are very wrong or overfluent whereas other are pretty cool.

For example there is a topic about shortstacking using 30 pages. Who needs it? We don't have 2008 anymore and most pokerrooms have introduced different min-buyin tables. I don't know if that math is correct, because I didn't review it. The topic may be interesting if you could take something out of it for later section. It was really interesting to see some basic approaches to game theory, but it was not picked up really later. There is a chapter about optimal bluffing frequency and optimal calling frequency, but common this is just theory and optimal bluffingfrequencies and callingfrequencies before the river was not even discussed. Even though this is a nice example how to apply mathematics it was just worthless for me. It's obvious and clear that the chance for an existing GTO strategy is pretty slim and even if someone would know how to play it, he wouldn't publish it for 30$ a piece. So I didn't actually understand why these topics where handled in the book.

The representation or transition of ranges into graphs is a pretty cool idea and easily applicable for everyones game.
Thomas also demonstrated another type of fish and I think he's the first one in books of that category that did it in that way. Pretty good topic.
The math behind continuation bets, combining ranges with board etc. is pretty good and probably a good help for people who don't know anything about math.
I was expecting a topic for multibarrelbluffs, because a lot of players intuitivly find these spots and don't have a proof why they are profitable. This book would have been the perfect place to cover this topic from the math side. I believe smallstakes players (who seem to be the main audience for this book) won't be able to do this themselves.

The 3-Bet topic is so incomplete/partly wrong on many scales. There was already some discussion about the 4-bet size that was suggested in the book. A lot of stuff about playing draws, playing semistrong made hands, ranges for 3-betting etc. where not highlighted or even mentioned.
A big problem throughout the whole book is also the assumption that people use topranges for alle their decision. There was no chapter that explained why this assumption was used and how it must be adjusted in real gameplay according to specific opponents.
Also there where a lot of implicit assumptions about playbackranges, 3-bet ranges etc. I had the impression that Thomas thinks "his" ranges are optimal. I don't know if these ranges are optimal and Thomas didn't present the proof why these ranges should be optimal.
It's nice to see all the math and so and why against a specific range X play C may be the correct one, but the most important part WHY and HOW Range x is there in a certain spot it not covered.
Thomas just takes assumptions and uses these to explain something. For a pokerbook with the subtitle (crushing mid-stakes shorthanded games) there should be more detailled explanations how and why he uses special assumptions. The most people don't lack to win in these games because the math is so complex, but they just have the wrong assumptions for a lot of things. And this book can't fill this gap.

All in all it was an okay read, but nothing that comes near to the quality of a let there be range or the aejones audiobook. Unluckily for Thomas the book can't even compete with the poker blueprint that is aimed at microlimit players.
I can't value a book just because their are 2 interesting topics and the rest is not that good. It's the complete package that makes a book worthwhile reading and sadly analytical no-limit hold'em couldn't provide that complete package. It leaves behind too much open questions.
Someone in the thread mentioned that the book reads like a academic thesis and I think he's so right on many levels. It reads like a hypothesis, but doesn't draw any conclusions. It's more like he tries to use math to explain his hypothesis, but can't come to a conclusion.
Complex and troubletopics weren't even touched. It actually doesn't make the impression to me that Thomas is really crushing the midstakes online or he just is not able to tell how.

I've only read the ssing chapter and i find it a bit annoying.
The author says that generally when opening in a short stack game you want to raise to 2bbs or 2.5bbs
but then charts 3 through 8 all operate under the assumption that the button opener raises to 3.5bbs.
I mean, why on earth would the author have done that?