Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Books and Publications Discussion and reviews of books, videos, and magazines. Sponsored by TwoPlusTwoStore.com.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-07-2013, 01:44 PM   #126
halsted
grinder
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 401
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Matthew,

If you have been playing lately what are you basic HUD stats?

VPIP PFR 3bet%

Also Cbet IP - Cbet OOP maybe aggro factor if you have it.

From your examples it would seem like you cbet OOP about 38% of the time and CBet IP maybe around 58% of the time?

I know it is all relative but if you have the numbers and would like to show them I would appreciate it.
halsted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 03:41 PM   #127
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 722
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by halsted View Post
Matthew,

If you have been playing lately what are you basic HUD stats?

VPIP PFR 3bet%

Also Cbet IP - Cbet OOP maybe aggro factor if you have it.

From your examples it would seem like you cbet OOP about 38% of the time and CBet IP maybe around 58% of the time?

I know it is all relative but if you have the numbers and would like to show them I would appreciate it.
The site I'm playing at right now does not allow a HUD to be used, or my hands to be recorded. Playing on American sites is a lot different than playing on PokerStars.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 06:37 PM   #128
halsted
grinder
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 401
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Janda View Post
The site I'm playing at right now does not allow a HUD to be used, or my hands to be recorded. Playing on American sites is a lot different than playing on PokerStars.
I play on American Sites. Have thought about purchasing Holdem indicator? Works on Bovada and Winning poker network.
halsted is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 08:34 PM   #129
dirtylobster
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
dirtylobster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Finland
Posts: 7,901
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by halsted View Post
I play on American Sites. Have thought about purchasing Holdem indicator? Works on Bovada and Winning poker network.
That seems like a really useless piece of software. It seems to me that it tries to tell you how to play poker and maybe that would even work at the lowest stakes but if you have any kind of ambition you should learn how to think for yourself.
dirtylobster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2013, 11:57 AM   #130
B3lly
enthusiast
 
B3lly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 73
Hey. I still dont get the passage on page 46 where you say: Against players who refuse to flat 3bets, we need to defend at least 15.2 percent of their total opening range or else bluffing with hands like ace-rag suited and pocket pairs becomes profitable for them.

So I understand the preflop raiser felts 15.2 percent of his opening range. But the sentence stated above says that the 3bettor needs to defend 15.2 percent of the raiser's opening range? Or else 4bet bluffing will be profitable for the raiser?
B3lly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2013, 12:11 PM   #131
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 722
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by B3lly View Post
Hey. I still dont get the passage on page 46 where you say: Against players who refuse to flat 3bets, we need to defend at least 15.2 percent of their total opening range or else bluffing with hands like ace-rag suited and pocket pairs becomes profitable for them.

So I understand the preflop raiser felts 15.2 percent of his opening range. But the sentence stated above says that the 3bettor needs to defend 15.2 percent of the raiser's opening range? Or else 4bet bluffing will be profitable for the raiser?
I'll make a post clarifying everything later tonight. All the confusion seems to mostly be in the pre-flop chapter and I'll make it so all the corrections and clarifications are in one place.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2013, 01:57 PM   #132
B3lly
enthusiast
 
B3lly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 73
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Janda View Post
I'll make a post clarifying everything later tonight. All the confusion seems to mostly be in the pre-flop chapter and I'll make it so all the corrections and clarifications are in one place.
Great! This thread really is added value for everyone buying the book!

Also, dont know if this has been mentioned before, on page 47 the final calculation is wrong since you apply the 0.6 factor twice. The overall expectation should be 3.77 instead of 0.77.
B3lly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2013, 03:23 PM   #133
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 722
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by B3lly View Post
Great! This thread really is added value for everyone buying the book!

Also, dont know if this has been mentioned before, on page 47 the final calculation is wrong since you apply the 0.6 factor twice. The overall expectation should be 3.77 instead of 0.77.
Noted, thanks. Sorry about all the mistakes in the pre-flop section, I'll have the post up soon.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2013, 04:05 PM   #134
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 722
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

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.

I'll try to get this post moved to the top of the thread soon.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2013, 04:13 PM   #135
B3lly
enthusiast
 
B3lly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 73
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Still dont understand the passage on top of page 46. :-)
B3lly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-08-2013, 06:40 PM   #136
JimAfternoon
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
JimAfternoon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: On Location
Posts: 6,904
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Will there be an ebook version of this for sale?
JimAfternoon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 06:01 AM   #137
B3lly
enthusiast
 
B3lly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 73
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimAfternoon View Post
Will there be an ebook version of this for sale?
http://www.professionalpoker.com/Cat...-Limit-Hold-em
B3lly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 09:24 AM   #138
BackDownSouth
banned
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: FLA
Posts: 110
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Very much enjoying this thread as I read the book. Wish I had something to ask but it will be months before I understand applying these concepts. Interesting though, I entered all the ranges you suggest pg 81-86 into flopzilla and it interesting in certain positions its looks like your casting your range in such a way, that it totally avoids conflicts with other ranges. I guess thats whats happening.

Enough exposing my noob-ness, Ill keep reading and learning
BackDownSouth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 12:48 PM   #139
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 722
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Just got a PM from someone who correctly said---

"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."

Should read -- "cannot fold more than 54 to 60" (as mentioned p 37)"

A bit busy at the moment but will try to answer the other questions people have in the next day or so.

Last edited by Matthew Janda; 06-09-2013 at 01:11 PM.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 01:08 PM   #140
B3lly
enthusiast
 
B3lly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 73
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Janda View Post
Just got a PM from someone who correctly said---

"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."
You mentioned this earlier also stating 50 to 54, but I believe it has to be 60 instead of 50, since 100-40=60.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Janda View Post
A bit busy at the moment but will try to answer the other questions people have in the next day or so.
No problem. Have been thinking some more about the passage repeated below. I just don't think it makes sense to say that someone has to defend a certain percentage of the other player's opening range. So please clarify this when you have time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by B3lly View Post
Hey. I still dont get the passage on page 46 where you say: Against players who refuse to flat 3bets, we need to defend at least 15.2 percent of their total opening range or else bluffing with hands like ace-rag suited and pocket pairs becomes profitable for them.

So I understand the preflop raiser felts 15.2 percent of his opening range. But the sentence stated above says that the 3bettor needs to defend 15.2 percent of the raiser's opening range? Or else 4bet bluffing will be profitable for the raiser?
The 3bettor needs to defend 15.2 percent vs 4bets?
B3lly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 01:51 PM   #141
PutMyRobeOnRITE
journeyman
 
PutMyRobeOnRITE's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: xxx
Posts: 250
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by BackDownSouth View Post
Very much enjoying this thread as I read the book. Wish I had something to ask but it will be months before I understand applying these concepts. Interesting though, I entered all the ranges you suggest pg 81-86 into flopzilla and it interesting in certain positions its looks like your casting your range in such a way, that it totally avoids conflicts with other ranges. I guess thats whats happening.

Enough exposing my noob-ness, Ill keep reading and learning

Yeah, this book and thread is the nuts.
PutMyRobeOnRITE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 03:01 PM   #142
Kuta
journeyman
 
Kuta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: far away from home
Posts: 291
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Hi Matt,

on page 106 (Part Four: Facing a Flop Bet in Position) I've to struggle a bit with the math.

How do you get the 30% of total hands we have to bet on the river? I'm not sure if I simply missunderstand it or if you just rounded the numbers. With a potsize bet villain gets 2:1 and so he has to call 33.33%, right? So, I thought, we have to bet 33.33% of our hands (20% value and 13.33% bluffs) ?!

Thanks in advance.

-Chris
Kuta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 03:28 PM   #143
Softspot
newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 43
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Hiya Matt,

Fantastic book. Thanks for writing it.

I'm new to the whole GTO discussion, so I was hoping for a chapter on when to use GTO vs exploitative strategies. I guess you left it out because it has been covered in other places? If so, I'd appreciate if you could point me me in the right direction. Or better yet, offer your thoughts on GTO at SSNL, specifically $50 - $100 rush/zoom.

Cheers,
Chris
Softspot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 03:35 PM   #144
JPE23
old hand
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: London
Posts: 1,519
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Softspot View Post
Hiya Matt,

Fantastic book. Thanks for writing it.

I'm new to the whole GTO discussion, so I was hoping for a chapter on when to use GTO vs exploitative strategies. I guess you left it out because it has been covered in other places? If so, I'd appreciate if you could point me me in the right direction. Or better yet, offer your thoughts on GTO at SSNL, specifically $50 - $100 rush/zoom.

Cheers,
Chris
So basically you want a walkthrough guide to poker?
JPE23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2013, 04:35 PM   #145
Softspot
newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 43
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by JPE23 View Post
So basically you want a walkthrough guide to poker?
That would be nice.

But uhm, no. How did you arrive at that conclusion? I would just like to know how GTO play compares to exploitative play at SSNL. Not sure how that's asking for a walkthrough guide to poker...
Softspot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2013, 01:06 AM   #146
EmptyPromises
adept
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,170
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

I just skimmed through the book relatively quickly (~3 hours). I'd say that I'm a little disappointed. I'm a big fan of Matthew Janda's and thought the book would have a little more insight than concepts he's discussed in the past. (although it's nice to see a little more discussion of turn play than most his stuff). Still I was hoping that if there weren't new concepts than there'd be at least some more in depth nitty gritty of previous concepts. Since most people seem to think the book is challenging and very enlightening, it's probably just my familiarity with his work.

I want to stress that I think Matt's explanation of GTO concepts are the most accessible of everyone's I've ever read or watched (and I've done my homework). If you're interested in learning GTO poker, I think this is the book for you. If you've read and watched everything he's done before, than you might not get much out of it.

If I have time tomorrow, I'll try and point out concepts which I think seem contradictory to the framework he's working within.
EmptyPromises is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2013, 01:49 AM   #147
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 722
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by EmptyPromises View Post
I just skimmed through the book relatively quickly (~3 hours). I'd say that I'm a little disappointed. I'm a big fan of Matthew Janda's and thought the book would have a little more insight than concepts he's discussed in the past. (although it's nice to see a little more discussion of turn play than most his stuff). Still I was hoping that if there weren't new concepts than there'd be at least some more in depth nitty gritty of previous concepts. Since most people seem to think the book is challenging and very enlightening, it's probably just my familiarity with his work.

I want to stress that I think Matt's explanation of GTO concepts are the most accessible of everyone's I've ever read or watched (and I've done my homework). If you're interested in learning GTO poker, I think this is the book for you. If you've read and watched everything he's done before, than you might not get much out of it.

If I have time tomorrow, I'll try and point out concepts which I think seem contradictory to the framework he's working within.
I appreciate the compliments regarding my CardRunners videos and am more than willing to take constructive criticism, but don't you think it's a bit premature to make a post pointing out contradictions in the book without having read it? Likewise, claiming there are no new concepts when you haven't read it?

I'm not saying this to prevent you from giving a negative review, as I'm sure your thoughts will help others make a more informed purchase. I just don't think it will be very productive to have a conversation about the content of the book when you haven't read it.

Last edited by Matthew Janda; 06-10-2013 at 02:08 AM.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2013, 01:53 AM   #148
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 722
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by B3lly View Post
You mentioned this earlier also stating 50 to 54, but I believe it has to be 60 instead of 50, since 100-40=60.



No problem. Have been thinking some more about the passage repeated below. I just don't think it makes sense to say that someone has to defend a certain percentage of the other player's opening range. So please clarify this when you have time.

"Against players who refuse to flat 3bets, we need to defend at least 15.2 percent of their total opening range or else bluffing with hands like ace-rag suited and pocket pairs becomes profitable for them."

The 3bettor needs to defend 15.2 percent vs 4bets?
Rather than "their" it should read "our." Sorry about this and you are very good at this mistake finding thing. Let me know if anything is still confusing.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2013, 01:55 AM   #149
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 722
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuta View Post
Hi Matt,

on page 106 (Part Four: Facing a Flop Bet in Position) I've to struggle a bit with the math.

How do you get the 30% of total hands we have to bet on the river? I'm not sure if I simply missunderstand it or if you just rounded the numbers. With a potsize bet villain gets 2:1 and so he has to call 33.33%, right? So, I thought, we have to bet 33.33% of our hands (20% value and 13.33% bluffs) ?!

Thanks in advance.

-Chris

With a pot-size bet, we're risking 1 to win 1, so villain will need to call 50% of the time to keep us indifferent to bluffing. But since he's getting 2:1 odds, on the river we'll need 66.7% of our river bets to be value bets and 33.3% to be bluffs. On earlier streets, we can be bluffing more often.

Let me know if that caused more stuff to click, if not I'll try to help you with where you're confused.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2013, 01:58 AM   #150
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 722
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by BackDownSouth View Post
Very much enjoying this thread as I read the book. Wish I had something to ask but it will be months before I understand applying these concepts. Interesting though, I entered all the ranges you suggest pg 81-86 into flopzilla and it interesting in certain positions its looks like your casting your range in such a way, that it totally avoids conflicts with other ranges. I guess thats whats happening.

Enough exposing my noob-ness, Ill keep reading and learning
Those ranges were really just my best guess at the time. Once you've made sure you're not making easily exploitable mistakes pre-flop (like folding to 3-bets 75% of the time), you need to try the ranges out in different post flop situations and see how you can improve them. So don't get too caught up on the ranges as they're clearly not GTO and you should do what you think is most +EV.

I'm not sure what you mean by "avoiding conflicts with other ranges."
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.33 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ę 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online