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 05-15-2017, 07:21 PM   #1551
statmanhal
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,873
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Janda View Post
What EmptyPromises is (correctly) saying is that all that matters for determining the best line is the current state of the game (each player's range, the stack depth, etc). If you and your opponent are playing heads up and find yourselves in a certain situation, it doesn't matter how you got there the optimal lines will be the same.
.
In post 299, the above appears

I think this says you need not know earlier round betting sequences for GTO play. You bet and villain calls is no different than V bets and H calls.
In describing Cephus, a GTO-like bot for LHE, Neil Burch notes it’s a pre-computed strategy and requires you to input the betting to have it show its next move. Here is the quote:

In order to act, Cepheus needs to know the public cards on the board, as well as the betting that has occurred.
Here is the link:

http://poker-blog.srv.ualberta.ca/20...uery-tool.html

Any comment?
statmanhal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2017, 09:07 PM   #1552
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 763
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deceiver_416 View Post
Hi Matthew,

I'm really enjoying your book as mathematician and a poker player with 18 years experience. One of my favorite sections is the one on pinpointing optimal river bet size. In 18 years I've never solved for this, I actually paused and came up with 0.83 through trial and error. However I believe this only to be correct in a vacuum, there is added value for your range in betting larger that we can actually quantify. Lets assume we can value bet 50 out of 100 combos here, the 83% bet size means we can be bluffing 31.2% of the time, that would be 22.67 bluff combos and 50 value combos. If we bet pot we can be bluffing 33.3% of the time, meaning 25 bluff combos and 50 value combos, adding 2.33 more bluffs to our range. Since when we bluff with a balanced range we have essentially won whats in the pot this would mean that increasing our size from 83% to 100% of pot gains us 0.0233 pot sized bets. The EV when we bet 0.83 is 0.20455 PSB and the EV of betting pot is 0.20000 PSB. We lose 0.00455 PSB by betting pot but more than make up for it with our bluffs, the equilibrium is somewhere between 1.2x pot and 1.3x pot IIRC from trial and error last night, I'd love to dive deeper here but I'm short on time. Without your book I wouldn't have even got this far, I really like your work but can you update that section taking this into account, I know it'll make the most complex math in the book even more complex, we'd also need to add a variable for how frequently we have a hand of this strength. It's been 20 years since I last studied calculus but I think it's worth looking into and you're one of the few people I consider more qualified than myself in the area of poker math.

Thank you for opening my mind to new ways to apply math to poker. I really enjoyed this one, not for everybody but as a math guy this was right up my alley!
Thank you for the comment and you've clearly put in a lot of work to this, I unfortunately had a bit of trouble following it and I don't think I have too much to add.

Feel free to keep posting though if you decide to keep working on this and think you've found something interesting or new. GL!
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2017, 09:18 PM   #1553
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 763
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by statmanhal View Post
In post 299, the above appears

I think this says you need not know earlier round betting sequences for GTO play. You bet and villain calls is no different than V bets and H calls.
In describing Cephus, a GTO-like bot for LHE, Neil Burch notes it’s a pre-computed strategy and requires you to input the betting to have it show its next move. Here is the quote:

In order to act, Cepheus needs to know the public cards on the board, as well as the betting that has occurred.
Here is the link:

http://poker-blog.srv.ualberta.ca/20...uery-tool.html

Any comment?
What I'm saying is if you know both players' ranges, then previous betting action does not matter.

In reality, the only way you'll know both players' ranges is if you know the previous action and bet sizing. So, in actual poker it's absolutely crucial to know the previous action, or you won't know what each players range is right now and what the right action is to take with your specific hand.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2017, 09:54 PM   #1554
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 763
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by huliok View Post
Hello Mr Janda... Im going through your book and as many others would like to have the BvB 3b ranges but unfortunately wasnt able to send you a pm probably cause im not active on forums.. Any chance to get in touch on skype? That would be awesome

Also would like to ask you what changes would you make to the ranges you purpose 4 years after writing the book also considered that most 6max players dont have a flatting range from sb vs co,btn? (At low stakes at least)
Probably best if you just make a few more posts then shoot me a PM.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2017, 05:37 AM   #1555
pksmv
newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Posts: 20
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Hello Matthew,

I'm re-reading Application of No Limit Holdem (AoNLH), best poker book ever read and Im looking forward to read your new book, but i have a doubt about a line in AoNLH.

In the section: sample hands, in hand number two i can not understand our bluffing line OTR.

In details:
- we are out of position in the UTG and villain is BTN.
- I'm focusing on our 3 barrel line after we raise first in pre-flop.
- The board is: [8c, 4h, 2s][2d][Tc]
- OTT our bluff betting range is composed by: [AQ,76s, 65s, AJ] (while our value betting range is: [AA, KK-QQ, TT]).

--> OTR we identify some combo of [AQ] as a bluff bet for balancing our value bets, that are: [AA, KK-QQ].

My question is: given the fact that we have 65s in our bluffing range OTR why do we use AQ as a bluff? isn't it more efficient to use a low show down value hands as a bluff? Moreover with AQ i think that we can not make an argument about blockers, i.e AQ is more efficienti as a bluff thanks to blockers, therefore i can not figure out why we use some combo of AQ as a bluff and not 65s...

I'm sure that you can help me to figure out this and thanks for your time Matthew, really appreciated!

Cheers
pksmv
pksmv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2017, 08:06 AM   #1556
Tuqu0
stranger
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Dubaï, UAE
Posts: 4
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by youthebest View Post
Hi Matthew, I finished reading, its a great book.

I would like you to give me an advice for balancing our range.

When a really bad card for our range falls, I have a hard time to construct a balanced range. (not perfectly but as possible as it can be)

For example, in HU match, we are in BB with 16% 3bet range, and V's 3bet call range is 30%. We 3bet to 8bb vs his 2bb open.

Flop comes the T98
my goal here is to jam about 50bb into 100bb pot with a balanced range on the river.

Since we 3bet to 8bb, pot growth rate is 2.32(16R^3=200).
So I am betting each street 0.57 pot size, which means 73% of our river bet has to be for value.
So we are betting on the turn and river with 73% frequency,
then 39% of our flop bets have to be for value. (0.73)^3

On the flop, say we have 192 combos, which means 75 combos of value(192*0.39).
Okay, I can come up with some combos to make it roughly around 75.
I believe thats a good start.

Turn is 3
Here, I can put some combos to have around 73% turn CB%, no problem.

River is J
This is a very bad card for our range although some our bluff combos got there.
This is where I feel uncomfortable to construct a range, I cannot say if shoving a set here is superior play than checking without further analysis, but even if we jam all the sets combos and even 7x, I think our value combo is so small, and now we have a lot of bluff catchers which will be XC or XF.

When the river is really bad, we just have to give up a lot of time, and give our opponent profitable bluffing spot? And is it okay for us to give him +EV bluff chance because he risked a lot of money to get this opportunity on the river?

If I misunderstood any concepts the above, please correct me.
I really appreciate your advice, thank you.

Hi,

Can someone explain to me where does 0.57 number come from ?
I saw this number in the book page 111 too.

If we want to go all in on the river we have 16R^3 = 200 <=> R = 2.32

So we have S + 2B = SR <=> 16 + 2B = 2 x 2.32 <=> B = 10.56
So we should bet 10.56BB on the flop.

Then we can calculate the % of the bet/pot.

16BB -> 100%
10.56BB -> 66%

So we should bet 66% of the pot on the flop, turn and river.

If we check this % we have a 200BB pot on the river.

Flop: pot 16BB, 66% 16BB = 10.56
Turn: pot 37.12, 66% 37.12BB = 24.49BB
River: pot 86.1BB, 66% 86.1BB = 56.24BB
Total : 86.1 + 56.2 = 198.5 BB

So I guess I am missing something ....

Thanks
Tuqu0 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2017, 08:45 AM   #1557
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 763
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by pksmv View Post
Hello Matthew,

I'm re-reading Application of No Limit Holdem (AoNLH), best poker book ever read and Im looking forward to read your new book, but i have a doubt about a line in AoNLH.

In the section: sample hands, in hand number two i can not understand our bluffing line OTR.

In details:
- we are out of position in the UTG and villain is BTN.
- I'm focusing on our 3 barrel line after we raise first in pre-flop.
- The board is: [8c, 4h, 2s][2d][Tc]
- OTT our bluff betting range is composed by: [AQ,76s, 65s, AJ] (while our value betting range is: [AA, KK-QQ, TT]).

--> OTR we identify some combo of [AQ] as a bluff bet for balancing our value bets, that are: [AA, KK-QQ].

My question is: given the fact that we have 65s in our bluffing range OTR why do we use AQ as a bluff? isn't it more efficient to use a low show down value hands as a bluff? Moreover with AQ i think that we can not make an argument about blockers, i.e AQ is more efficienti as a bluff thanks to blockers, therefore i can not figure out why we use some combo of AQ as a bluff and not 65s...

I'm sure that you can help me to figure out this and thanks for your time Matthew, really appreciated!

Cheers
pksmv
Sorry about the late response.

I'm confused, aren't we bluffing both the 65s and AQ?

Either way, I was probably just trying to include enough combos, and the weakest combo I could see including after we already bluffed the 65s and friends was AQ. Though realistically, at the time I wrote this I mostly would just go "Ok, I want to value bet 30 combos on the river and bluff 10 combos, so what are the weakest 10 combos I have in my range on the river I can bluff with?"

But the better your opponents are, the more removal effects will matter on the river. The weaker your opponents are, the most your actual showdown value will matter, because even if you should never win with checking AQ on a 8422T board against an optimal opponent, at the end of the day sometimes you will.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2017, 08:47 AM   #1558
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 763
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuqu0 View Post
Hi,

Can someone explain to me where does 0.57 number come from ?
I saw this number in the book page 111 too.

If we want to go all in on the river we have 16R^3 = 200 <=> R = 2.32

So we have S + 2B = SR <=> 16 + 2B = 2 x 2.32 <=> B = 10.56
So we should bet 10.56BB on the flop.

Then we can calculate the % of the bet/pot.

16BB -> 100%
10.56BB -> 66%

So we should bet 66% of the pot on the flop, turn and river.

If we check this % we have a 200BB pot on the river.

Flop: pot 16BB, 66% 16BB = 10.56
Turn: pot 37.12, 66% 37.12BB = 24.49BB
River: pot 86.1BB, 66% 86.1BB = 56.24BB
Total : 86.1 + 56.2 = 198.5 BB

So I guess I am missing something ....

Thanks
Based on just the numbers I'm seeing, it looks like it should be a 66% PSB to me too. But it's early in the morning and maybe I'm missing something youthebest was referring to as well.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-08-2017, 10:25 AM   #1559
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 763
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tuqu0 View Post
Hi,

I am confused with a formula given in the book (Facing a flop 3bet page 131).

We want to know how often our opponent's turn jam should work to be profitable, given the situation below:

- we are hu 100BB deep
- on the turn, the pot is 80BB
- our opponent goes all-in with with his 10% equity bluffs

Here is the formula from the book:

80X - [ 60 - 200 (Bluffs equity)](1-X) = 0

With X the frequency our opponent's bluffs must succeed.


So, if our opponent jams on the turn and we fold, he wins the 80BB pot X % of the time.

If we call, we are playing a 200BB pot, and he wins 200 * 0.10 = 20BB since he has bluffs with 10% equity. His bluffs get called (1 - X) % of the time.

I start to get confused with this part of the formula [ 60 - 200 (Bluffs equity)]
Someone can tell what does it means ?


Thanks


Sent from my SM-G928F using Tapatalk
It's figuring out how much we lose on average when our bluff is called.

So let's say we go all-in for 60BB and villain calls. The final pot is 200BB. But now, if we have 15% equity with our bluffs once called, we really didn't lose the 60BB we put in the pot. On average we'll lose less because sometimes we'll be called and get lucky and win a massive pot.

So on average, we only lose:

60 - 200 (Bluffs equity) = 60 - 200(0.15) = 60 - 30 = 30BB

That's because we on average get 200(0.15) = 30BB back from the pot, since we end up winning the 200BB pot 15% of the time.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 07:05 AM   #1560
tonyk81
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 58
Re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

I have some questions on section "Maximum 3 betting ranges" on page 41.
First it says that there are 5 players left to act after the UTG player opens. this suggests we are dealing with a 6-MAX table. Are all discussions in the book handling 6-MAX and not full ring ?

Then given the preflop opener needs it to work 70% of the time to be immediately profitable we first derive the percentage all 5 players cant three bet for that to work and that comes out to 0.93. We then call the complement of that (6.9%) the maximum 3 bet frequency.

Why is this a maximum frequency? If we 3-bet more aren't we also denying the open immediate profitability?
tonyk81 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 10:49 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online