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 06-14-2013, 01:22 AM   #201
Matthew Janda
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 689
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by daveh07 View Post
I just got done reading the preflop and flop part, preflop was pretty eye opening how wide you could 3-bet and the defending to lose less then if you were to fold was a new perspective to look at. Flop play was awesome how you broke everything down, I was already doing most of the things layed out in the flop part of the book because it seemed like the best way to exploit opponents but having the math and formulas and justifications in front of you are awesome so you know exactly why you are doing something. I am on page 200 and look forward to reading the rest, very good book.
TY, glad you're enjoying it and hope you'll continue to.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 01:31 AM   #202
Matthew Janda
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 689
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by MLjung View Post
First things first:
I got the book yesterday. I´ve read part 1-2, and it´s FANTASTIC!
I´ve been thinking a lot about pre flop play previously, and I´m glad to see that my thoughts haven´t been far off. But of course there are tweeking to be made.

A question about defending against a SB-raise from the BB (apologies if this already has been asked and answered):
We cold call with a truckload of hands (45%). I´m guessing we are 3-betting for value with JJ+, AJ+ and KQ (they´re not in the CC-chart, and I think it´s -EV to fold them, regardless of what "The Iceman" Monroe might say).
And to not have an unbalanced 3-betting range we need to add the appropriate number of 3-bet bluff-hands.
We can easily find out how many hands, but which hands?
I´m assuming some subset of the remaing KXo, QXo, JXo-hands (however many we need to make Villain indifferent to defending).

Am I going about this correctly?

Thank´s again for writing a great book (at least judging by the first two parts).
As mentioned earlier, I intentionally left out SB vs BB ranges when I wrote the book as I wasn't sure what they look like. They are not as simple as value 3-betting with your best hands, then calling the next best, then 3-bet bluffing with the hands not quite strong enough to call.

Since you're going to likely be 3-betting many hands against a SB open, using a 2:1 bluffing to value 3-betting ratio won't work because "value 3-bets" (such as TT or AQ) aren't that strong (they'll be outdrawn constantly) and "3-bet bluffs" can easily improve. The situation simply won't model well.

FWIW, I think I understand these ranges now much better than I used to, but I'm still not looking to discuss SB vs BB ranges yet. I'd highly recommend reading post 62 where I talk about using non-polarized 3-betting ranges to get a feel for why a lot of hands should likely be 3-bet pre-flop even if they're neither a "value 3-bet" or "3-bet bluff."
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 04:49 AM   #203
MLjung
adept
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Calling aggressively
Posts: 787
Arrow re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Janda View Post
As mentioned earlier, I intentionally left out SB vs BB ranges when I wrote the book as I wasn't sure what they look like. They are not as simple as value 3-betting with your best hands, then calling the next best, then 3-bet bluffing with the hands not quite strong enough to call.

Since you're going to likely be 3-betting many hands against a SB open, using a 2:1 bluffing to value 3-betting ratio won't work because "value 3-bets" (such as TT or AQ) aren't that strong (they'll be outdrawn constantly) and "3-bet bluffs" can easily improve. The situation simply won't model well.

FWIW, I think I understand these ranges now much better than I used to, but I'm still not looking to discuss SB vs BB ranges yet. I'd highly recommend reading post 62 where I talk about using non-polarized 3-betting ranges to get a feel for why a lot of hands should likely be 3-bet pre-flop even if they're neither a "value 3-bet" or "3-bet bluff."
Thank you for answering!
MLjung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 05:34 PM   #204
paulogaiotto
stranger
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Janda View Post
I'd first just point out that your flop checking range looks really, really strong. To the point where you can't even bluff effectively if the opponent checks the turn or river to you and you want to value bet.

Whether or not you defend 60% depends on if you think the opponent should be able to profitably bet ATC. His range should be weaker than yours on the flop, so I don't think defending 60% on the turn should be too difficult, but you can't know what the correct defending frequency is.
Matt, you could post some hand examples, like this one, perhaps we could start a new topic only with hand examples , aplying GtO analisis ,and later these hands , you could publish them as your new book?
Sorry about my bad English, that is not my native language
paulogaiotto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 05:41 PM   #205
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

Hey Matt,

On pages 198/199 are you arguing that 2bb or more does or doesnt make sense?
You say it doesnt but the arguments seem to favor that it does.
B3lly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 12:56 PM   #206
Matthew Janda
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 689
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by B3lly View Post
Hey Matt,

On pages 198/199 are you arguing that 2bb or more does or doesnt make sense?
You say it doesnt but the arguments seem to favor that it does.
I just read the section and it seemed correct to me as written (but it's often pretty hard to find errors for your own material, since I know the concept already and what I'm trying to say).

It's saying that if the average EV of a pure air hand on the flop in CO vs button is 2BB, then that's probably too high. That's because any hand in the button calling range (even if you assume the button should call with quite weak hands, like 75s) will still flop pretty well reasonably often. So if the button already gets a good chunk of what he invested pre-flop if he misses (2BB on average) and he can sometimes flop the nuts and win a massive pot, it seems like the CO is not defending his checks aggressively enough on the flop.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-15-2013, 12:57 PM   #207
Matthew Janda
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 689
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by paulogaiotto View Post
Matt, you could post some hand examples, like this one, perhaps we could start a new topic only with hand examples , aplying GtO analisis ,and later these hands , you could publish them as your new book?
Sorry about my bad English, that is not my native language
Hey Paul,

At the moment I have no intention of publishing another book. I may write some articles for 2+2 though.

-Matt
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 03:22 AM   #208
the_trav
Formerly travel21
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: USA
Posts: 302
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

possibly already answered, and maybe a dumb question, but how well will this book work for a micros player? I know basic ABC should do you well in the micros, so will this book be to advanced for like 4nl and 10nl?
the_trav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 06:09 AM   #209
dalonelybaptist
old hand
 
dalonelybaptist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,788
Quote:
Originally Posted by travel21 View Post
possibly already answered, and maybe a dumb question, but how well will this book work for a micros player? I know basic ABC should do you well in the micros, so will this book be to advanced for like 4nl and 10nl?
I'm a 20NL reg and I think its great. Its not too advanced it just isn't the most profitable advice, but it teaches u so much about how to spot when other people are playing exploitably.
dalonelybaptist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 03:15 PM   #210
ServerBTest002
grinder
 
ServerBTest002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 562
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Hi Matthew I'm reading your book right now, and I'm pretty excited about that. I promised to myself that I would try to understand as much as possible so I'm asking and I will asking you various questions in other to understand better the material. Hopefully my dumb questions will help other readers as well

1. About the polarized range definition.
I lurked in the past 2p2 and other books and I have some confusion about it.
a. The polarized range has strong and weak holdings, but they have to be equal in quantity? I mean a polarized range could be composed by 2/3 strong hands, 1/3 weak hands and still be considered polarized?
b. In some posts I found that a polarized range could have not only strong or weak hands, but 2 different holdings, let's say, strong and mid value and nothing in the weak part... it is still considered a polarized range?

2. About the EVfold = 0 definition
I have begin to reading Expert Heads Up No Limit Hold’em v.1: Optimal and Exploitive Strategies by Will Tipton
but i gave up after I got your book. Anyway I that book, the author have a new way to expose the EV concept, basically, he counts how many dollars/chips you will end up with after you make a decision. I found that his way works better than the EVfold = 0 definition. I mean, it works better for me. The std definition could lead us to some misleading choices: we could c/c 2 streets and c/f the river, we are losing money even if the EV of folding is 0. Can you explain why we should stick to this definition. Maybe I got a mental blockage with it

3. Page 17, Making our opponent indifferent to calling on the river
I'm feeling pretty retarded about this one... whatever
In the example you stated that:
(2 PSB) ( X ) - ( 1 PSB ) (1 - x ) = 0
in order for the opponent to be indifferent between calling and folding
I tried to get the general formula and I think it is
(amount won) (x) - (amount lost) (1 - x ) = 0
Basically we could thinking about what odds we are giving to our opponent and know what proportion of value/bluffs we should have in our range.
So if we are betting half pot, Villain is getting 3:1 odds, so he needs to be right 25% of the times, so in order to make him indifferent we should have 25% of value hands and 75% of bluffs hands right?
ServerBTest002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 03:16 PM   #211
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
I just read the section and it seemed correct to me as written (but it's often pretty hard to find errors for your own material, since I know the concept already and what I'm trying to say).

It's saying that if the average EV of a pure air hand on the flop in CO vs button is 2BB, then that's probably too high. That's because any hand in the button calling range (even if you assume the button should call with quite weak hands, like 75s) will still flop pretty well reasonably often. So if the button already gets a good chunk of what he invested pre-flop if he misses (2BB on average) and he can sometimes flop the nuts and win a massive pot, it seems like the CO is not defending his checks aggressively enough on the flop.
OK. I now see how you are approaching this. Basically you are saying that IF his pure air hands have a 2+ bb or more then this and that would be the case, so THEN the player out of position is not playing optimally. And thus 2+ bb can't be true when both players are playing optimally. IMO this thought process is not really clear from the text though.

I also have one more question about p. 230. I understand our valuebets are now 85% instead of 80%. However, why are our bluffs also 15% instead of 20%? A gutshot is still a gutshot, no matter how strong our opponent's range, right?
B3lly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 03:54 PM   #212
envelope
adept
 
envelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: ^^
Posts: 1,048
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by ServerBTest002 View Post

b. In some posts I found that a polarized range could have not only strong or weak hands, but 2 different holdings, let's say, strong and mid value and nothing in the weak part... it is still considered a polarized range?
strong to mid value (assuming there's nothing in between) would be a linear range, not a polarized range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ServerBTest002 View Post
Villain is getting 3:1 odds, so he needs to be right 25% of the times, so in order to make him indifferent we should have 25% of value hands and 75% of bluffs hands right?
he is "right" when we are bluffing, so we have to be bluffing 25% and vbetting 75%.
envelope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 04:47 PM   #213
Matthew Janda
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 689
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by B3lly View Post
OK. I now see how you are approaching this. Basically you are saying that IF his pure air hands have a 2+ bb or more then this and that would be the case, so THEN the player out of position is not playing optimally. And thus 2+ bb can't be true when both players are playing optimally. IMO this thought process is not really clear from the text though.

I also have one more question about p. 230. I understand our valuebets are now 85% instead of 80%. However, why are our bluffs also 15% instead of 20%? A gutshot is still a gutshot, no matter how strong our opponent's range, right?
It's not saying that if the expected value of flopping air is 2BB a player cannot be playing optimally, since that can't be proven. It's saying that to me that sounds quite unreasonable, and I'm willing to say "If a player expects to win on average 2BB when they flop pure air in position, then the OOP player is likely not betting and defending his checks aggressively enough."

I just picked 85% and 15% to make the value bets and bluffs a bit more polarized. Wasn't chosen for any particular reason other than that.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 04:52 PM   #214
Matthew Janda
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 689
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by ServerBTest002 View Post

1. About the polarized range definition.
I lurked in the past 2p2 and other books and I have some confusion about it.
a. The polarized range has strong and weak holdings, but they have to be equal in quantity? I mean a polarized range could be composed by 2/3 strong hands, 1/3 weak hands and still be considered polarized?
b. In some posts I found that a polarized range could have not only strong or weak hands, but 2 different holdings, let's say, strong and mid value and nothing in the weak part... it is still considered a polarized range?
A polarized range does not need an equal proportion of strong and weak hands. And a range that is composed of strong hands and medium strength hands wouldn't be polarized, because a polarized range more or less means clear value hands and bluffs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ServerBTest002 View Post
2. About the EVfold = 0 definition
I have begin to reading Expert Heads Up No Limit Hold’em v.1: Optimal and Exploitive Strategies by Will Tipton
but i gave up after I got your book. Anyway I that book, the author have a new way to expose the EV concept, basically, he counts how many dollars/chips you will end up with after you make a decision. I found that his way works better than the EVfold = 0 definition. I mean, it works better for me. The std definition could lead us to some misleading choices: we could c/c 2 streets and c/f the river, we are losing money even if the EV of folding is 0. Can you explain why we should stick to this definition. Maybe I got a mental blockage with it
Sometimes using the definition that folding have an EV = 0 is best, other times it helps to look at the EV of the entire hand. As long as it's clear what you're doing either should be fine, and the book does both (though usually sticks to EV of folding = 0 as I think it's usually best for comparing lines).

Quote:
Originally Posted by ServerBTest002 View Post
3. Page 17, Making our opponent indifferent to calling on the river
I'm feeling pretty retarded about this one... whatever
In the example you stated that:
(2 PSB) ( X ) - ( 1 PSB ) (1 - x ) = 0
in order for the opponent to be indifferent between calling and folding
I tried to get the general formula and I think it is
(amount won) (x) - (amount lost) (1 - x ) = 0
Basically we could thinking about what odds we are giving to our opponent and know what proportion of value/bluffs we should have in our range.
So if we are betting half pot, Villain is getting 3:1 odds, so he needs to be right 25% of the times, so in order to make him indifferent we should have 25% of value hands and 75% of bluffs hands right?
Since villain only needs to win 1 out of 4 times, we'd need 75% value bets and 25% bluffs. That way if he calls 4 times he'll on average lose 3 times and win 1 time (and break even).
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 02:05 AM   #215
Chinned
journeyman
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 218
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Just received the book today.

I have only reda the preflop section.

I can see some issues with the preflop hand chart.

eg.

UTG vs a 3 Bet IP. You say to 4 bet AA,98s,87s,76s.

So we are 4 Bet calling 33% and 4 Bet folding 66%. This have to be wrong. We can easily be exploited with such an unbalanced range as this.

And to chose 98s,87s,76s instead of say KQo is really bad. KQo blocks so many combos of hands that will 5 bet us. KK, AK, QQ etc.

I have the same issues with the UTG vs 3 Bet OOP hands.

I also wish you had not put asterisks next to the hands and actually listed the individual combos or even put AQo (3c) cause now you have to play a guessing game as to how many combos of each hand when their is multiple asterisks in the same range ie TT and AQo both have asterisks. If there is only 1 asterisk i.e AQo i can just take out combos till i match the defending range i.e 5.1% etc
Chinned is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 11:04 AM   #216
Matthew Janda
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 689
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinned View Post
Just received the book today.

I have only reda the preflop section.

I can see some issues with the preflop hand chart.

eg.

UTG vs a 3 Bet IP. You say to 4 bet AA,98s,87s,76s.

So we are 4 Bet calling 33% and 4 Bet folding 66%. This have to be wrong. We can easily be exploited with such an unbalanced range as this.

And to chose 98s,87s,76s instead of say KQo is really bad. KQo blocks so many combos of hands that will 5 bet us. KK, AK, QQ etc.

I have the same issues with the UTG vs 3 Bet OOP hands.

I also wish you had not put asterisks next to the hands and actually listed the individual combos or even put AQo (3c) cause now you have to play a guessing game as to how many combos of each hand when their is multiple asterisks in the same range ie TT and AQo both have asterisks. If there is only 1 asterisk i.e AQo i can just take out combos till i match the defending range i.e 5.1% etc
There are many things "wrong" with the pre-flop hand chart (see my previous posts in this thread), and a ton of hands in it will be part of mixed strategies (calling sometimes and folding other times). Keep in mind the more accurate a hand chart gets, the messier it will also get and it will be less useful to new players.

If you're comfortable with your pre-flop ranges then I would try to take some new information from it (if you play SSNL or lower, you're likely not defending against 3-bets nearly aggressively enough in theory) but don't worry about all the hand combos adding up perfectly.

Also keep in mind in the example you pointed out with AA, if the opponent 5-bet jams AA has like 80%+ equity. That's why there are so many more "value 4-bets" than "4-bet bluffs" in that position. And I agree I'd rather have KQ than suited connectors as "4-bet bluffs" now, as already explained earlier in this thread.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 11:39 AM   #217
gaming_mouse
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
gaming_mouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: taking notes on u (see profile)
Posts: 13,630
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Matt,

This is the best book on NL poker I've come across, and the one I wish I'd had when I was learning. Amazing work.

Quote:
And I agree I'd rather have KQ than suited connectors as "4-bet bluffs" now, as already explained earlier in this thread.
I thought the situation you'd discussed before was 3betting stuff like 75s vs stuff like K7s out of the blinds, and you were saying you'd changed your position to believing that K7s would be better because it had higher equity, even though it will be harder to play postflop. Correct me if you were referring to a different point.

In any case, there is a tradeoff between the effectiveness of "ease of play" vs "pure equity." In the 4b example you were just discussing, it seems that the difficulty of playing KQ, especially as a TP, possibly dominated hand, gets really nasty when you've been 3b as UTG. But you are saying the extra equity still outweighs that difficulty?
gaming_mouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 12:55 PM   #218
Matthew Janda
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 689
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by gaming_mouse View Post
Matt,

This is the best book on NL poker I've come across, and the one I wish I'd had when I was learning. Amazing work.



I thought the situation you'd discussed before was 3betting stuff like 75s vs stuff like K7s out of the blinds, and you were saying you'd changed your position to believing that K7s would be better because it had higher equity, even though it will be harder to play postflop. Correct me if you were referring to a different point.

In any case, there is a tradeoff between the effectiveness of "ease of play" vs "pure equity." In the 4b example you were just discussing, it seems that the difficulty of playing KQ, especially as a TP, possibly dominated hand, gets really nasty when you've been 3b as UTG. But you are saying the extra equity still outweighs that difficulty?
It is really, really hard to evaluate what hand is better pre-flop since you can't convert equity into expected value. That's why when someone makes a comment like to "chose 98s,87s,76s instead of say KQo is really bad" my thoughts or more or less just "meh." Chinned may be completely right, and I would rather have KQo than 98s now (as explained earlier), but it's not like this is something you can prove, pre-flop probably uses a very mixed strategy, and I'm not sold KQo is better than other hands we can use (such as ATs, KJs, KTs, QJs, AXs, etc).

For the K7s vs 75s, the only thing 75s does better than K7s is it makes some straights. This of course matters, but as of now I'd rather just have better pairs (pairs of kings are better than pairs of fives, and K7s makes pairs of sevens with a better kicker than 75s). If I'm talking poker with someone who understands this and still thinks 75s is better, then that's totally fine with me and not something I'd really get in a disagreement about, since no one actually knows.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 01:11 PM   #219
gaming_mouse
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
gaming_mouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: taking notes on u (see profile)
Posts: 13,630
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Janda View Post
For the K7s vs 75s, the only thing 75s does better than K7s is it makes some straights. This of course matters, but as of now I'd rather just have better pairs (pairs of kings are better than pairs of fives, and K7s makes pairs of sevens with a better kicker than 75s). If I'm talking poker with someone who understands this and still thinks 75s is better, then that's totally fine with me and not something I'd really get in a disagreement about, since no one actually knows.
Thanks for the answer. As for the bolded, the other advantage it has, as you discuss in the book, is that with 75s it's more likely that you're equity flops in a polarized way -- some flops where you have very little and can make a safe fold, and others where you have a lot with a good draw and that is clear. This leads to relatively easier decisions (and therefore a smaller chance of making an error) than K7s, where your equity is distributed more evenly on flops, and where even your good TP hands can be dominated.

I'm explaining this just to make sure I understood your old argument. I understand that you are now leaning more toward K7s because of its absolute higher equity.
gaming_mouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 03:14 PM   #220
ServerBTest002
grinder
 
ServerBTest002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 562
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by envelope View Post
strong to mid value (assuming there's nothing in between) would be a linear range, not a polarized range.
Are you sure? The image is taken from a QTip book
http://i.imgur.com/XM4cXNX.png
ServerBTest002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 03:26 PM   #221
ServerBTest002
grinder
 
ServerBTest002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 562
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

A. "We want to emphasize playing hands which have a high amount of equity against our opponent’s betting and calling range. Hands which only have a high amount of equity against those hands our opponent will frequently fold by the river are much less useful"
Ouch my english is not that great, another way to say that could be what I wrote below?
We can't play only hands that have a huge advantage over Villain's holdings, so we should play more marginal hands

B. “Hand signaling” occurs when our hand tells us whether or not we should try to see additional cards to make the best hand by the river. For instance, after seeing a flop with a suited connector, we’ll almost always know exactly what we need in order to make the best hand, and we’ll usually want to see a turn card if we flop a pair, straight draw, flush draw, or three to a flush and three to a straight. Since we only fold suited connectors on the flop and turn if our hand has little equity, if we don’t see a river card, it’s unlikely we would have outdrawn our opponent on the river anyway.
Pretty embaressed about that, I don't understand the last sentence

C. About the grey area between value betting and bluffing
I read this chapter and a question come into my mind, while your considerations are pretty strong, I think we need to decide if a bet is for value or bluff, in order to keep the things simple especially at the tables. At the tables, if we are questioning about what type of bet we are making, we could get confused. I think what you stated is good, but maybe it could help us away from the table. What do you think? If you don't agree with me, when you are at the tables, what you are asking yourself instead "why I'm betting?
ServerBTest002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 03:46 PM   #222
gaming_mouse
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
gaming_mouse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: taking notes on u (see profile)
Posts: 13,630
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Since we only fold suited connectors on the flop and turn if our hand has little equity, if we don’t see a river card, it’s unlikely we would have outdrawn our opponent on the river anyway.
Pretty embaressed about that, I don't understand the last sentence
I think I can help with this one, and it's related to the question I asked MJ in my last post. He's saying that typically if you flop a pair or good draw with a SC, then you will try to see the river. If you flop absolutely nothing with those hands, then you typically have a very little equity anyway. so when we fold on the flop we're not giving up that much. Whereas if you are forced to fold overcards like AJ on the flop, you'll often be giving up more equity since your 1 pair outs are often live.
gaming_mouse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 04:19 PM   #223
envelope
adept
 
envelope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: ^^
Posts: 1,048
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by ServerBTest002 View Post
Are you sure? The image is taken from a QTip book
http://i.imgur.com/XM4cXNX.png
Sorry, I'm not sure what point you're making with that picture.

If you start with a range of the strongest hands and then add hands to it sequentially based on strength, the range would be linear, not polarized.

A 3betting range can often be polarized because you may 3bet the strongest hands, call with the next group of hands (thus, they aren't in the 3bet range), and then also 3bet hands that aren't strong enough to call.

<--strong----mid value----weak-->

<--3bet--> <---call---> <--3bet--> = polarized 3bet range
<---------3bet-------> <--fold---> = linear
envelope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 05:59 PM   #224
ServerBTest002
grinder
 
ServerBTest002's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 562
re: Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em Review and Discussion - See 1st post for Updated Concepts

Quote:
Originally Posted by envelope View Post
Sorry, I'm not sure what point you're making with that picture.

If you start with a range of the strongest hands and then add hands to it sequentially based on strength, the range would be linear, not polarized.

A 3betting range can often be polarized because you may 3bet the strongest hands, call with the next group of hands (thus, they aren't in the 3bet range), and then also 3bet hands that aren't strong enough to call.

<--strong----mid value----weak-->

<--3bet--> <---call---> <--3bet--> = polarized 3bet range
<---------3bet-------> <--fold---> = linear
Ok ty for the explanation.
The image I posted is referring to a flat range, a range where there are strong, mid and weak holdings. When you said linear range I thought about the flat range, btw I understood now ty
ServerBTest002 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 06:19 PM   #225
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

Update to post #146.

I was acting hastedly in my previous post when I said there was no new content except for the turn section compared to Matthews Janda's CardRunner's Videos. In my initial post I had only skimmed the book, and most of the new content is in the details. However, I think I was hoping for a section where a new way of thinking about poker was brought up -- such as Matt's Donking series. Matt does spend quite a bit of time going through Turn and River decisions much more than in his videos. More discussion on small stack play. However, unusually absent was a section on multiple bet sizes. But more than anything, he does dig in deeper to all the concepts he's presented in previous videos and the well thought out and organized structure makes it a good compliment to his videos and vice versa.

On a more general note, at the end of each section is a general though process for different lines which will be helpful more people new to Matt's material when it can seem overwhelming. He provides lots of useful hand histories and at the end of the book, he goes back and forth between players all the way through to the river with multiple hands. A lot of the concepts in the book can't be proved or easily implemented, so it does a good job of teaching you how to think about poker. But to take advantage, you're going to have to do a lot of work away from the tables becoming familiar with different scenarios and ranges.

As I said in my last post, I'm a big fan of Matt's and would consider this book as a great foundation for your poker theory knowledge.
EmptyPromises 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 06:01 AM.


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 © 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online