Hi MathrimC:

Just a quick note. Matt's book is not analyzing situations such as three or four players limping in and then you holding a hand like ace-queen offsuit or ace-jack offsuit. Thus the subtitle "Emphasis on Tough Games." Perhaps, and I don't speak for Matt, this is something he'll tackle in a future work.

Best wishes,
Mason

Cool, I just looked over it.

I already explained in the book why I like checking (though I can elaborate), but I think this discussion will be best if you start us off with why you like betting and how much. We can then go from there and see if we get on the same page.

P.S. Thoughts on Pickle Rick? I usually hate "non-standard" episodes where they have silly flashbacks and such, but I absolutely loved this episode. The only other time I can remember thinking "oh wow this episode will suck" right off the bat but then being proven totally wrong was the "It's Always Sunny" episode where they do a giant flashback and crack the liberty bell (I usually hate flashback episodes).

Thanks guys, that genuinely means a lot.

Probably you 4bet a polarized range vs a std BB, so your range include monsters and some high equity bluffs. The flop is dry but we want to build the pot with our good hands (TT+) and we check the other hands. Assuming BB is somewhat decent, he didn't flat total garbage so he have a lot of equity vs our range that missed the flop, also betting with AK doesn't accomplish the 2 fundamentals reason of betting. What I don't get it is why we shouldn't be owned pretty much 100% of the times here... if we bet our value hands seems clear to me we whiffed the flop, even a fish could exploit that. And this happens a lot in my games, and felt owned too much

Regarding the episode, I loved it too, watched 3 times already and changed my Skype Avatar

I thought it would be a slow episode, probably because I wasn't to intrigued about a pickle. Obviously when he enter the sewers and build the insane machine everything changed. Till now, one of the best episode ever

I care much more about how much equity villains FOLDING range has against our AK than how much equity our range has vs his range. What are we make folding that AK actually really cares folds?

Also, why is betting better than just calling a bet or two?

I understand better your thinking given what you said in the first sentece.
Regarding calling a bet or two... we won't see any showdown from any capable opponent. We clearly have a capped and easily attackable range

You have used Pokersnowie throughout the examples to litmus test your analysis. on a one to ten scale, how competent is that software? do you believe checking the various scenarios ev calculations are robust?

Honestly can't give a more fair assessment in a few paragraphs than what's already in the book. I don't think assigning a 1-10 grade really helps more than the assessment I've already done, but if you have a more specific question I can try to help.

There's no way to know exactly how accurate lots of Snowie's EV estimations are since poker isn't a solved game.

Can most 5/10 blinds regulars beat Pokersnowie? I am just trying to better understand why you think this advanced poker software results are credible? I think you have written a superb book that can help any poker player wishing to improve their game. Personally, the "small" bet size opened my eyes.

Online or live? The vast majority of players lose to Snowie, but I think it's impossible to rate its play accurately. Back when it was launched (when I think it was significantly weaker) players were losing 18bb/100 against it, with hardly anyone actually winning. Poker players have improved a lot since 2013 (due to books like Matt's, and the use of solvers), so I'd guess that Snowie doesn't crush its challengers today as much as it used to. I've done pretty well against it over 20,000 hands (probably variance/rungood), but I've noticed it's been a lot tougher to beat since it learned the "quarter pot" bet-size. It also does some 'odd' things that I never see at microstakes, but that resemble the 'crazy' hand histories of nosebleed limits.

Thanks for the informative response. I play $5/$10 and sometimes $10/$25 and i was debating if it was worth checking the EV from snowie on some interesting situations from my real play hands. Matt seemed to have based his new book on assuming the EV from Snowie confirms his various theoretical hypothesis. Enjoyed reading his book.

Not 100% sure he wasn't trolling but jungleman recently said he studies with pio and snowie, fwiw.

I wouldn't take Snowie's EV numbers too literally (especially on the turn and river), because - in most games - there will be players that have entirely different ranges to those that Snowie "expects". You'd get more 'realistic' numbers if you did some range-crunching with PioSolver, since with software like that you can specify what you think your real life opponent's range looks like. Snowie kind of bases its EV numbers on what it thinks your opponent's range should look like. (Snowie typically expects opponents to be tighter and more aggressive than they are in real life).

Arty and mrno1324 kind of already said what I was going to say, but I don't think Snowie could beat a typical online NL$1000 cash game reg largely because those players have already likely improved from using and learning from Snowie and PioSOLVER.

I'm reading through part four "you don't want action". I agree with the thrust of what MJ is saying but am confused by the numbers he uses in his example. In the NL200 example the button opens to $5 and hero 3-bets to $16 from the BB. MJ says your EV on the flop needs to be at least $24 in order to want action - I'm thinking it should be $16, which is the amount risked on the 3-bet...what am I missing ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like other posters, I loved the section in the new book on reasons for betting. Best poker advice I have ever received.

I decided to check and see if the advice helped me understand a situation which has been troubling since I played the hand in Vegas this June. Here is the hand as posted in the Red Chip Poker forum.

"Playing a 5/10 game at Aria today (June 24) and have :Ac :Tc on the Button. ESS=1600

Good European player opens under the gun for 30. 1 call ahead of me and I call. Three to the flop. Pot=90.
Flop is :Kh :Qc :7c . UTG bets 60. Fold. I raise to 210.

UTG reraised to 525. I shove. Comments on this line?

Reviewing on Flopzilla, I put his range after the 3bet as

AA, KK, QQ, 77, any AK, any KQs and :Kc :Jc .

Against this range, my hand has 40% equity. With about 1000 behind, none of my options are appealing.
very hard to fold this strong a draw
a call allows him to put pressure on me if I miss turn but allows me to get away if the board pairs (it did)
shove is only slightly+ EV

Seems best in retrospect to assume he has some weak bluffs in his range and shove.

Comments and opinions welcome"

The comments I received suggested that my line was high variance and I shouldn't make the post flop raise. I wondered about the implications of the high SPR.

However, it all seems very clear to me after reading Matt's betting advice; i.e.

when villain makes his c-bet of 60 into a pot of 90 with about 1600 behind, I definitely have good reasons to bet on both criteria:

• growing the pot in case I win is clearly appropriate since I have a lot of equity and remaining stacks are large

• there are a lot of hands which I can get to fold which have a lot of equity so this is definitely a good opportunity to get villain to surrender equity

Now when villain 3bets to 525, the situation changes dramatically:

• I no longer want to grow this pot in case I win as while I still have quite a bit of equity I am usually behind
• I also cannot really expect villaing to surrender his equity on any of his strong hands so there is no value in trying to get a fold. He will only fold his bluffs and I am ahaed of these

[/LIST]
So I should call. If the turn bricks, I am likely going to have to give up my equity (if villain bets) but this is better than gambling my whole stack. This line also has the advantage of allowing me to escape if the board pairs on the turn (as it did).

Thanks Matt

Comments welcome

What would your entire raising and calling ranges be on the flop?

Very glad to hear you like the book.

To be honest to really explain the math/reasoning behind this hand and the different lines I'd probably have to write a couple pages or an article.

Long story short is it sucks to get your equity "broken in half" by having someone put you on a draw then ship the turn when the draws misses so you don't get to realize your equity

I'm fine with your line and think you can argue multiple lines here. In other words if I were watching you play a bunch of hands and you said "comment only when you think I screwed up" I would not comment with several different lines here.

I disagree with the range you assigned him though unless you know he's badr. 3-betting the flop here with AA or AK is disastrous.

It just means if you'd rather your opponent fold or call.

If he calls, your EV on the flop needs to be on average $24 for it to be on average more profitable than just winning the monies pre-flop.

Your EV needs to on average be $16 post-flop to only break even, but you don't break even when 3-bet and get folds so your EV needs to be higher than that to WANT action.

I presume villain opened for 2.5x, because otherwise the pot would be bigger than $90 on the flop. /PedantMode
I think it's a 3-bet or fold pre. The hands you should be overcalling pre should mostly be set-mines, possibly including QQ. I think I'd probably have no raising range on the flop vs a 2/3 pot bet on that texture. (Villain's sizing when 3-way OOP on that board seems terrible, but that's live poker). If you raise the flop, then you're presumably doing the same with QQ/77, and I think those should just call the 3-bet. The natural play is to just call with your combo draw and try to improve on the turn. Jamming without fold equity isn't going to be great, as you'd almost certainly be getting it in badly.

reply to mrno1234

Thanks for the question.

First I need to consider what I get to the flop with.

my range for calling pre-flop will be quite wide given stack depth and my position, say

A2-A4s, A6s - AQs, 22-QQ, Kts+, QTs+, JTs - 56s, J9s - 75s, AJo+, KQo.This represents 218 combos { I am only 3-betting an UTG raiser with AA, KK, AKs, A5s}

So, on the flop of KhQc7c and facing a c-bet and a fold, I am left with 189 combos. I am raising with (combos in brackets)

QQ(3), 77(3), KQ(9), AcTc (1), AcJc(1), JTs(4) which gives me 6 semi-bluffs and 15 value hands

I am calling with AK(12), AQ (15), A7s(3), AJ (12), ATs (3) plus the Ace high hands with two clubs and the suited connectors and 1-gappers with two clubs which gives me about 75 combos for calling. Probably I also call with QhTh, QhJh and KJs and KTs for 6 more combos,

So, of 189 combos, I raise with 21, call with 81 and fold with 87. Perhaps I nee to call a few more hands with a 7 and 88-JJ but the raising range seems fine. Villain is likely to see my raising range as weaker since he may expect me to 3-bet preflop with QQ and AKo but I would just call in position

Got it - thanks !

Two reasons to bet or raise....
1)on hands with robust equity like 7c8c on a flop with a flush draw, one can argue build the pot in case i win (what point do you take that argument too far?)
2)You will always deny some equity by getting hands to fold. Is about 25% a reasonable threshold for example with two overcards on the flop.
I think, i understand the two reasons but an extra clarification would be helpful. Thanks.

I think your line is fine though personally I'm more likely to call the flop c-bet rather than raise. I just think it gives me more strategic options OTT and river as I'm IP. I prefer going the high variance route when OOP.

I have a question. The book confirmed a lot of what I already have known. But I have always had a problem with 3 betting strategies from professionals vs tough opponents. Mathematically many models put forth curved graphs for betting and folding, raising and folding, etc. But I think those graphs don't account for certain variables. We are human and don't make adjustments on a curve. For example. If I bet 1/3rd pot vs X opponent he might XR bluff me and barrel the turn. But if I bet 2/5th pot vs the same opponent he might get suspicious and just call. The difference in money made and won is a lot larger. This is presented in the book in the form of betting vs checking when the best play technically is exploitive vs a particular opponent. Even if an opponent is weak and betting is correct to make him fold our opponent isn't on a mathematical curve of betting. He is on an absolute mindset. He might 100% fold to one sized bet and 100% call vs another. The difference between the 2 is minimal. So with this in mind. If I am wrong about what I read in the book please correct me.

One note. Online I can make an argument that Janda's book is correct due to the size of data we have on our opponents and the available information. If a player is tough we can calculate fairly accurately our play vs them like a computer formulating ranges and plans if they are giving us trouble. The below applies to when we don't have such detailed data as in live games. I believe the software now even tells you how a player plays specifically vs you in which position vs which position.

We assume here 100+bb stacks.

So I wanted to address a couple 3b scenarios.
OOP = out of position
IP = in position

Tough Opponent is raising wide IP and you are in the blinds - resources advocate 3b'ing a mixed range vs tough opponents. Why? It still doesn't make sense to me over just calling with high equity hands and 3b'ing with a polarized range.

Calling over 3b'ing a mixed range
SPRs are higher with high equity hands
We can still bluff the same as if we 3b and CB
We get to hand the aggression to the opponent and get a read on his play
He can't trap us preflop in a bloated pot - Cold call with AA and let us value own ourselves
We can represent a huge amount of draws
We aren't opened up to 4b bluffs
We can realize our equity

3b'ing polarized balanced premiums (TT+AQ) and trash ~9% (60/40 premi/trash) vs a mixed wider range of lets say 15%
Our opponent is forced to play predictable
Our opponent is dealing with an almost optimal 3b scenario forcing way less 4b bluffs
Even if we are bluffed when we hold 72o our equity is so bad vs the opponent's entire range it is less wrong to fold compared to when we hold 76s flop a draw and can't realize our equity or have to pay a price for our draw that might not get paid
If we hit our hand is disguised when we hold 72o
It is easy to play and easy to get away with
It is easy to get paid if we hit with trash and our opponent slowplayed a big hand
Our 3bs get through a lot

There are many other variables to consider.

Tough Opponent raising wide and we are IP - Resources advocate raising a mixed range but calling with high equity hands isn't bad. I say you polarize your range again. But not with trash. With hands that have card removal and back door equity that rarely get you in trouble. Bluff 3b'ing hands are Axs, Kxs, Qxs.

The reasons why I like these hands should be clear from the readings. But what is not clear is their comparative flush situations. Something never discussed in books is that the 3rd nut flush is usually the 50% mark of flushes. This means that if you get raised or someone bets into you when the flush card comes holding the 3rd nut flush is ahead of 50% of all other flushes. A reason I don't 3 betting hands like 76s. I have been coolered way too many times. And while many might say "bah that rarely happens" you are right. But the cost of when it does impacts the profits of so many future hands in little pots.

One instance where I believe 3 betting is better is when you have another tough opponent behind who can squeeze if you limp. But my solution to that. Move tables, change seats. Why are you sitting squeezed between two tough aggressive opponents?!?! In an MTT you don't have a choice, but I am referring to specifically cash games. We take the most optimal situation and in my eyes it's finding the best game. And if the table you are at sucks and all the tables of that limit suck drop down a limit.

So why call with 76s instead of 3b it if it is safe behind us and we have the button?
The only issue that is not in our favor is that in general a big hand won't just call our 3b, they will 4b OOP.
But all the other factors still remain.
In addition because of our relatively equal skill our position gains us an even larger leverage to bluff.

If you hold a big pair what is more difficult to play? A tough player 3 betting you? Or that same tough player calling and raising the flop small leveraging the pot against you with position? Potentially forcing you to play for stacks when you have committed little to the pot? If a low SPR makes it easier for a bad player to play his hand than it does the same for a good player.

So I am having a hard time finding an argument for 3b'ing a mixed range vs a tough opponent as this book says and pros recommend.

This article does not include squeezing. All the obvious factors are why it's a good play.

From my experience..... I have had much more success calling with high equity hands and using dead money or scare cards successfully vs the tougher opponents than 3 betting them with hands like 76s which end up in disaster situations from time to time. I don't realize my equity, I get coolered, I get it in as a dog with a big draw vs a set, etc.

I have had a far better experience just calling with that mixed range and polarizing my 3bs forcing my opponents to play predictable.

I believe even in Ed Miller's book he explains he can call and play better with positon during a steal vs a mixed 3b player. Vs a polarized player he has to play predictable and usually folds.

For me flipping my opponent's hand face up is one of the most important factors in the game. My hand then doesn't matter, just what he has.