Now that the book is hitting the street, lets fire up this review and discussion thread. Use the old thread for ordering - availability info.

Cheers,
Mike

Updated Concepts:


Post #11 -- I now think it's better to emphasize high equity hands as 3-bet and 4-bet "bluffs" even if they are difficult to play post-flop as they won't make as many nut type hands. This isn't solvable, but I'd usually prefer to have K7s rather than 76s despite the former being more difficult to play.

Post #62 -- This post explains how non-polarized 3-betting ranges work and why many people now think they're better than polarized 3-betting ranges in certain situations.


Errors and Miscalculations

Page 41 -- The bottom of page 41 should say "If a player defends against 4-bets by only 5-betting or folding, they must 5-bet 40 to 46 percent of the time when facing a 4-bet. In other words, he cannot fold more than 50 to 54 percent of the time or else his opponent will make an immediate profit."

Right now it says a player cannot fold to 4-bets more than 40 to 46 percent of the time, which isn't true.

Page 46 -- The column which says "5-bet-call %" would be more clear if written "Call 5-bet %." This column shows how strong of a range a player should be prepared to felt pre-flop if they open and always respond to a 3-bet by 4-betting or folding.

Page 47 -- The equation at the bottom of the page multiple 7.5 by 0.6, which it should not. This means the EV of 4-betting in this example should be 3 big blinds higher.


I just double checked, and this mistake is not repeated in the following tables, so the tables remain correct. That said, keep in mind those tables are just meant to illustrate why 4-betting or folding is such an ineffective pre-flop strategy, don't try to memorize them or become overly concerned with them. The take home message is "the optimal strategy likely requires you to call a lot of 3-bets out of position, as always 4-betting or folding when facing a 3-bet is probably a poor strategy."

Page 61 -- The equation state the small blind will fold 74 percent of the time, whereas with our assumptions he's folding 76 percent of the time. The difference is negligible.

Page 70 -- A sentence says "This means he will get on average 3 big blinds back from the 18 big blind pot" but assuming no rake the pot will actually be 19.5 big blinds. This doesn't change anything conceptually or any calculations, but understand this is even a stronger argument for why players need to defend very aggressively by calling after opening on the button when facing a 3-bet. Players will on average probably have much more than 3BB in EV after their OOP 3-bet "bluff" is called.

Page 71 -- In the equation, X is the button's calling frequency, not folding frequency.

Page 128 -- The sentence near the bottom of the page should read "And if we do just call, a raise on the turn will likely be ineffective on any ace, king, queen, nine, eight, or heart and probably should not be made."


Almost all these mistakes are pre-flop, and I apologize for this as I know it sucks when you're trying to learn a new concept and the book has an error (even if the error doesn't significantly impact anything). Please let me know if there are more mistakes and if anything else isn't clear, and I'm happy to keep updating old concepts or addressing new ones as people point them out.

After reading Part one Def not a beginners book and looking good.

Trying to understand the lack of feedback..... Never known a 2+2 book that didnt generate reveiws

Probably because people got the book yesterday ?

50 pages in seems solid so far

Why use 3.5bb open for examples as almost no one at MSNL opens that big in today's games?

If they were lucky they got it yesterday. I'm still waiting for mine, but I'm in LOL-Canada. Oh, and the "official" release date is May 20th, which isn't even now yet.

Project took 2.5 years to complete, and using the "bet the pot" button was pretty common when I started writing it. It also had the advantage of being a size which seemed reasonable-ish for both live and online games, and it doesn't change the math much if you make the open 3BB or 2.5BB.

Long story short, if I kept updating everything in this book as I learned something new or general tendencies changed, it'd be impossible to finish the book. I also have full intention of responding to questions and comments in this thread, so I can give very up to date information on ranges/bet-sizings/frequencies etc here, as well as expand on a few of the more difficult concepts.

I'd like to praise the author for the rich density of this book. It's filled with helpful advice, and an example appears almost every time a reader could possibly want one.

It is well thought-out, and the occasional awkward phrase or typo (inevitable in the first printing of a work that is so large and that addresses such a complex topic) in no way detracts from the reader's ability to come away a better, more rounded player.

In the Utilizing Removal Effects section on page 351: "...since he could be bet-folding a hand like the AT." You're considering bluff-raising with the A in your hand, so I'm wondering what suits/combos you meant.

+1 to all of it.



Zy

Just finished Part 2

What is the reasoning for suited connectors as 4bet bluffs? Why not hands with blockers like KQ or 55

It depends on positions (since you won't always have access to hands like KQ and KJ to use as 4-bet bluffs), but there's no way to know whether or not a hand like 55 or 67s is better. Each one has advantage and disadvantages.

I would say this though, if I could remake the pre-flop hand chart again, I'd probably make a couple of changes.

1) I'd 3-bet even more hands now that hate facing a 4-bet, but do well in 3-bet pots. So I'd always 3-bet AQ from the blinds against a CO open, and probably even do it (mostly) against a MP open. There's no way to tell if this is right, and it's possible in theory we should flat some AQ and 3-bet others, but overall I'd make this change.

2) I'd put more emphasis on hands which have a high amount of equity, but don't have very robust equity. In other words, hands like 75s are usually hands people love to 3-bet bluff (myself included) because they are very easy to play and it's easy to tell when we make the best hand. Hands like Q9s are much tougher. But if you let your 3-betting range gets too polarized, or in other words doesn't flop many "Meh" hands like Q9s or K7s often will, it gets hard to balance your range post-flop in 3-bet pots since there aren't many good check-calling hands.

Again, there's no way to tell what's right here, as your 3-betting range likely needs a combination of everything. But I'd emphasize the higher equity hands which are tougher to play more now, whereas before I used to emphasize 3-betting hands with robust equity a bit more. At the end of the day, against most players who open the button 3-betting with both K8s and 75s is likely going to be profitable in the small blind (since most people open the button too wide and fold too much to 3-bets), so even if in theory K8s is a 3-bet in a GTO range whereas 75s is a fold most anyone who analyzes their database will show a big profit with 75s as well.

3) Removal effects are good, but they don't only reduce strong hands in the opponent's 3-betting range but also reduce his bluffs. So if our opponent is 3-bet bluffing with lots of KXs and AXs as well, whether or not we block an ace or king likely won't be that big of deal. It's not nearly as drastic effect as it is on the river (where the removal effect can be a pretty big deal), so while the removal effect is nice I'd still mostly focus on hands which play well and retain their equity reasonably well.

All that said, I think KQ will just about always be better than 65s or 44, but I imagine there are some exceptions.

My copy of this book should arrive tomarrow. I hope its good

I just got the book today and I think it's excellent. There is no way this book will not improve anyone's game by a significant margin. The concepts are understandable and applicable. I'm looking forward to the discussion here and asking some of my own questions after I digest some of the chapters.

Hi,
Question about our ck/calling range on Sample hands on page 459.... KK,QQ,JJ is part of our flop ck/calling range on the A87tt board. I think if we face another turn bet that should be part of our turn ck/folding range since we have enough Ax and other combos we are defending on the turn, what do you guys think about this?

-on second thought I'm not sure about KK,QQ and JJ being part of our ck/folding range on the turn.....in this example if it's possible to have 99, and TT in our flop betting/turn ck/calling range....why not throw KK, QQ and JJ into our flop ck/call, turn ck/call range...

Thanks for the detailed reply, I really appreciate the help.

The book is great so far, I like how it looks like a powerpoint

would this book be benefical to crush the 6max micro stakes or is it too advanced for the Micros and am I better to just watch your videos on Cardrunners.

How's "Part Twelve: Multiway Pots"

Is it in depth? How many pages is it?

I play live and have a lot of trouble in mutiway pots.

^Page 364-376 so 13 pages.

Well the reason why I'd bet TT on the A87 board and check KK is because betting the flop makes many KQ/KJ/QJ hands fold, which is a good thing when we have TT but not very useful when we have KK. So, just because we may bet TT on the flop and check-call it on the turn doesn't imply that if we check-call KK on the flop we'll have to check-call it on the turn, it'll depend how each players range looks. And since a A87 board with a FD is at least reasonable hard to slowplay on, our opponent's range is probably stronger on the turn if we check-called the flop than if we bet and he called.

As for whether I'd check-call or check-fold KK-JJ on the turn after checking the flop, it'd of course depend on the turn card and how much the opponent bet. KK-JJ is 18 hand combos, which is a lot in this situation, so my gut tells me we'd be calling with some and folding others.

It's one of the smaller sections. A lot of the concepts which deal with equity, bet sizing, etc apply to multiway pots, but the sections on both multiway pots and deep stack play mostly discuss some general theory and assume you can apply the theory previously discussed to these situations.

Just to be clear, I don't believe any books or videos will let you just "crush" a limit. You're going to have to put in the work to get better no matter what, and your dedication, talent, emotional control, etc are all going to determine how well you win. This book is a tool to help you improve in the technical aspect of the game, but you'll still have to work on everything else and put in the time to get better.

If you liked my CR videos I imagine you'll like the book. It will have more than enough information to make you a much better player and help get you past uNL and into SSNL. I also think you're better off learning more advanced stuff earlier on rather than sticking with "here are some easy guidelines to beat uNL," as this will develop bad habits you'll have to lose later.

Should be getting the book today. Really looking forward to it.

I'm just wondering how it might help someone who plays live full ring games at the 1/2, 2/5 level.

I can't play online so I'm hoping I get some benefit out of the book that I can apply in the games I can actually play in.

Any thoughts on this?

You mentioned that in some situations, there can be a GTO equilibrium where villain can bet any two cards and make it +EV for them to do that. I believe you used the example for when villain 4bets On the Button vs a Blind 3b, and villain can profitably bluff any two cards on the flop, because he has already invested so much money previously. Does this mean that we still need to defend over 67% of hands for a 1/2 pot cbet on the flop, but that we still expect his bluffs to make money (because of us having a weak range, and therefore his bluffs having more equity), OR
That we should actually defend less than that, which is what allows villain to profit with any 2 cards because we fold "too much" ?

I think i understand the concept and it makes sense, but I'm unsure when it applies and when it doesn't.

I'm assuming that for flop c-bets in single-raised pots this effect is very negligeable because villain didn't invest much in the pot before-hand (only his PF opening size).

However, In part 4, in the chapter "Facing a flop 3b", page 130-133, you said that once we call the flop 3b and villain bets turn with a gutshot, he needs it to work at least 33% of the time for his bluff to be break-even, and so therefore we should defend about 67% of our hands. But here, villain already had to invest an extra 30 big blinds on the flop with his "bluff" (the gutshot), and so if we call 67% of hands, he's bet will break-even on the turn. Shouldn't we "allow" his bluff at this point in the hand (turn) to be +EV since he already invested so much money in the pot earlier on, and therefore should "allow" us to fold more on the turn (which will also lesser the value of his flop 3b range, since our felting range is now more narrow).

Thanks.

I just finished Part 4, good stuff so far, especially the post-flop part. I do feel like you could of gone into more depth for pre-flop, but the book is already big enough as it is

Btw is this "statement" ever applicable for river bet situations ? I had an interesting exchange with punter who said this :

Which kind of suggests that It's OK for us to be exploitable in a specific situation, if villain had to "pay" a lot with his "bluffs" to get to that situation, which is what I'm assuming you were talking about for the 4b pot.

Absolutely, I totally understand the reason for putting TT in the c-betting range on the flop and KK into the ck/calling range, you've explained the purpose of betting to fold out villains equity (KQ,KJ,QJ etc...) in your book and videos :-)

"And since a A87 board with a FD is at least reasonable hard to slowplay on, our opponent's range is probably stronger on the turn if we check-called the flop than if we bet and he called."

- I get it now, thank you.

"it'll depend how each players range looks"
-I'll have to figure this out on my own

Thanks Matt.

If ranges are asymmetrical (as they will be when one player 4-bets and the other calls), it's very common for the better range (the 4-betting range) to be able to profitably bet any two cards. So you should not try to defend aggressively enough to prevent the 4-bettor from being able to profitably defend any two cards, but that isn't problematic since he had to pay a lot of money (by 4-betting) to maybe get into a profitable post-flop spot (he'll sometimes face a 5-bet pre-flop and have to fold his weaker holdings without ever get the opportunity to bluff post-flop).



It's explained in more detail in the book of course, but it mostly applies in spots where if you fold too much your opponent will never fold. So for example, if I fold so much to your 3-bets pre-flop or your post-flop raises so that you can profitably raise any two cards, that's pretty clearly problematic. You'll now never fold because folding has an EV of 0 whereas raising has a positive EV.


It may be ok for his bluff to break even with any two cards, but that's only if you think he should never be check-folding a hand with no showdown value (since check-folding has an EV of very close to 0 if not literally 0..... going into more detail probably won't help the discussion and will just get confusing).

There are certainly some spots where every line in the opponent's range should be +EV, since checking of course has a positive EV as well (this is easiest to see on the river if every hand has some showdown value). So this isn't a spot where you can prove you must be defending against a 1/2 PSB 33% of the time or else you must be wrong, but just recognize you're assuming ever hand in the opponent's range must be +EV if you don't. Again, this is easiest to see on the river, where if you don't defend 33% of the time against a 1/2 PSB then your opponent will never check-fold a hand with no showdown value.

See above, Punter is most definitely right with regards to check-folding a very high frequency on the river, and while I've only read a few of his posts before he's always seemed spot on. I'm not going to try to understand the concept game unless I need to, as I think we're already on the same page (let me know if I'm wrong).