The raw data is not available.

I think I tend to slowplay flops a lot vs checkraises. The fact is, my cbetting range is pretty wide, so strong hands do well to stay mixed with the more mediocre c/r-flatting stuff. As you suggest, though, one strong motivator to 3bet is if I think Villain's range has lots of draws. When I do 3bet for this reason, strongish but definitely non-nut (protection-needing) hands will be the main category of 3betting hands.

Well, this is kind of a broad question, 20bb and 100bb are very different. Big picture, a stronger hand is necessary to want to put much money in, and pot control type lines make a lot more sense.

Is Figure 14.3 what you want?

Sorry should have been more specific. I meant the capture factor with his entire range (basically, the game value from the flop onwards) Thanks!

Hi Will,

I was wondering if you had any more information on what GTO does when it limps and gets raised at GTO short stacked play, particularly what it limp-shoves.

Thanks!

The same question, could you specify for 7, 10, 15, 20bb what SB does when its limp is iso-raised? Please share it in EDVis format.

Hey, Will. Im wondering how much would CF's of very best hands would change on flop if we were deeper, both for SB and BB. Now looks like SB is having CF of 2.5 but BB's CF=2. But u mentioned that its at this 25bb stack depth.
Thanks

Hey, 1 more question.
Are we check/raising more or less as stacks get deeper.
For example do we want to c/r J9o on that Jh8s3s and barel big on safe turns and rivers?
If we are 25bb deep its easy jam on most turns and dont have to worry about loosing more chips in case we are behind.
Thanks

How about now?

Question.

In the bottom paragraph of p. 122, it is essentially stated that certain hands are preferred as semi-bluffs because they have less showdown value (equity) versus villain's range (the reasoning given is that too much showdown value is given up in order to turn them into bluffs). In the previous paragraph, however, it is stated that the best semi-bluffs are those with the most equity against villain's range. Why doesn't the same reasoning apply there (to say that those hands should be the last to be included in the bluffing range)?

It seems to me that you should fill up your bluffing range (to the equilibrium frequency) with your best semi-bluffing hands, and then, if you still need more bluffs, start including hands with the least equity (that, unlike the semi-bluffs, don't have the chance to improve). Indeed, this is what I thought was being said in the middle paragraph on p. 118, but that seems to contradict the logic of the paragraph on p. 122.

Am I misunderstanding something?

Just to further clarify the above question,

Why? Since we are assuming that villain never bets/raises, we are always getting to showdown anyways. So wouldn't we rather get more money in when we have higher equity?

Thought some more...is it because gutshots like 4-6 fold out villain's 3x, thus when they do river a pair it's the same as air relative to villain's turn calling range (composed mostly of 8x)?

Is it worth?

The book's price is unusually reasonable when considering its high quality content.

hej thx for your response.

I would have some questions:
Which software would you advise to analyse ranges or create gto ranges.
I am just assuming you have more knowledge in this area than me.

Would you also say this knowledge is applicable to omaha?
Will i be able to create gto ranges after going through this book?
How am i going to create ranges in multiway pots and what do i have to adopt in 6max or full ring games?
Also which books would you advise beyond obviously vol1 and this book.
regards

Pokerstove and Slice are free and let you analyze range vs. range allin equities. As far as I know, the only commercially available gto range creating software is GTO Range Builder. Card Runners EV calculates maximally exploitative strategies (not necessarily GTO).

In a sense, yes. All the GTO concepts in the book (and there are many) are applicable to Omaha (if they are inferred correctly) because the betting structure of NLHE and Omaha are the same (except that Omaha is often pot limit). The only major difference is, obviously, hand ranges, and thus equity distributions. Overall, however, I would say that the knowledge would be extremely valuable in any poker variant; you just have to extrapolate correctly.

Yes. I assume you don't mean exact GTO ranges (which will usually require the assistance of a computer due to the complexity of most poker situations). But the book does an excellent job of training your intuition for understanding and creating GTO ranges on the go (i.e. as you play).

This book only addresses heads up situations, and for good reason – GTO strategies in multiway situations do not have the same guarantees of GTO strategies in heads up situations. Heads up, a GTO strategy is unbeatable (guarantees a minimum EV) regardless of the opponent's strategy. Multiway, however, a GTO strategy only maintains that guarantee as long as all other players also play the corresponding GTO strategy. If somebody deviates, it is guaranteed that their EV will decrease, but their deviation may also cause your EV to decrease, even though you are still playing the GTO strategy. So GTO is a much less useful (and much less developed and researched due to its complexity) concept multiway.

That said, when a heads up situation arises in 6max or full ring games, all heads up GTO concepts become applicable, so the content of this book is also very useful for non-heads up formats.


The Mathematics of Poker is the classic.

It's not out yet, but I'm confident GTO or GTFO will be pretty awesome. Check out the author's blog, where you'll find lots of free content explaining GTO concepts very clearly and accurately.

Hi,

Thx for your great responses.
Lastly, what do you think about the software gtorb?

I've never purchased the software, but I've tried the free trial and have seen the author use it in instructional videos, so I understand what it can do. It's pretty awesome.　I don't think many people use it, though. I think it's kind of expensive, and many good poker players don't really understand GTO enough to be able to utilize what GTORB has to offer. Also, it's certainly possible to become a winning player without this software. But I would recommend it.

Ah gotcha -- these numbers should be right to within about a half a BB per 100:

7s6d5s_after_std_minr_20bb SB(P1) EV: 20.3509 | BB(P2) EV: 19.6491
Jh8s3s_after_limp SB(P1) EV: 25.1811 | BB(P2) EV: 24.8189
Jh8s3s_after_std_3bet SB(P1) EV: 26.4021 | BB(P2) EV: 23.5979
Jh8s3s_after_std_minr SB(P1) EV: 25.3462 | BB(P2) EV: 24.6538
Kc3d7h_after_limp SB(P1) EV: 25.176 | BB(P2) EV: 24.824
Kc3d7h_after_std_3bet SB(P1) EV: 23.3389 | BB(P2) EV: 26.6611
Kc3d7h_after_std_minr SB(P1) EV: 25.234 | BB(P2) EV: 24.766
QhTs9s_after_limp SB(P1) EV: 25.2792 | BB(P2) EV: 24.7208
QhTs9s_after_std_3bet SB(P1) EV: 25.6687 | BB(P2) EV: 24.3313
QhTs9s_after_std_minr SB(P1) EV: 25.4332 | BB(P2) EV: 24.566

but I think the EVs of individual hands and the distribution of EVs are a lot more important/interesting.

Hey guys, better late than never I hope...

K, pictures and EDVis format for SB's limp-fold, limp-call, and limp-shove at 7, 10, 15, 20bb. Sizings and SB's initial limping range given in the book. Fwiw, I'm probably not going to be filling any more requests for data like this . And btw, there's a new version of EDVis that supports exporting "EDVis format" as well as manipulating individual hand combos and such.

7 BB
call:
http://www.willtipton.com/limp_raise/7.ser.gz.call.txt


http://www.willtipton.com/limp_raise/7.ser.gz.fold.txt
fold:

http://www.willtipton.com/limp_raise/7.ser.gz.jam.txt
jam:

10 BB
call:
http://www.willtipton.com/limp_raise/10.ser.gz.call.txt

fold:
http://www.willtipton.com/limp_raise/10.ser.gz.fold.txt

jam:
http://www.willtipton.com/limp_raise/10.ser.gz.jam.txt


15 BB
call:
http://www.willtipton.com/limp_raise/15.ser.gz.call.txt

fold:
http://www.willtipton.com/limp_raise/15.ser.gz.fold.txt

jam:
http://www.willtipton.com/limp_raise/15.ser.gz.jam.txt


20 BB
call:
http://www.willtipton.com/limp_raise/20.ser.gz.call.txt

fold:
http://www.willtipton.com/limp_raise/20.ser.gz.fold.txt

jam:
http://www.willtipton.com/limp_raise/20.ser.gz.jam.txt

Well answering this quantitatively basically requires solving the game at those other stack sizes, but intuitively, we definitely expect the nuts to be making more money as stacks get deeper. This money will come at the expense of mediocre made hands who find it harder to realize their equity in deeper stacks.

Again speculating, but I imagine we checkraise somewhat fewer flops at equilibrium as stacks get deeper. For a lot of the same reasons as equity-capturing becomes harder for mediocre hands, it becomes more valuable to play better hands in the same way as if they were mediocre hands.

Still the case that all the errors I know of are mentioned in this thread. There are surprisingly few of them (thanks again to my readers!) But I agree that some time has now passed, so official errata up on the website is now on my TODO list.

Errata up on my website means, sir?

Big picture: there are trade-offs, but often the best rule of thumb isn't to fill your bluffing range with your best draws and then add 0-equity stuff. It's more like, fill up your bluffing range with stuff with the smallest difference between equity-vs-starting-range and equity-vs-calling-range. For mediocre made hands, that difference is huge -- if they manage to fold out worse and get called by better, the give up tons of equity by turning themselves into bluffs. But draws tend to keep most of their equity when called.

And sometimes it takes a careful analysis of the board and Villain's ranges to see exactly how certain hand combos behave. The spot you mention here is a good example of this:

That quote is in the context of a particular board/spot (it isn't meant in general, ofc). As explained in the prev paragraph, we expect a lot of the gutshot hands' pair outs to be good against Villain's turn starting range but not against his turn bet-calling range. So, we win the pot at showdown lot more frequently if we check it down rather than if we bet and get called. This is also the case for a mediocre made hand. Thus, both types of hands give up a lot of showdown equity when they turn themselves into bluffs. Hero's single-overcard hands have less equity, but they keep more if it if they bluff and get called, and they turn out to be better bluffs here.

yea

Also, keep in mind that at this point in the book, we aren't yet considering Villain's option to check-raise turn. If he does that much, it can significantly discourage our using draws to bluff and change the final answer quite a bit.

sorry I don't understand?

There's unavoidably a good bit of calculation/computation that goes into any finding of equilibrium ranges, but these books give an explanation of how to do it exactly in theory, how to estimate them in some spots in practice, and what they look like in many different situations.

FWIW, the Solving Poker vidpack shows how to write software to do it yourself -- this is good for understanding exactly what's going on with GTO ranges in addition to having the software itself.

Yea, the theory applies to all games (although there are some complications with 3+player spots and, e.g., "ICM-effects" in tournaments).

thanks

+1.. be suspicious of anyone trying to sell "GTO play" in 3+ player (or tournament) spots.