I agree with you. I'm not sure what range Peter is calling with pre-flop, but I would not be slowplaying sets or combo draws (e.g. 65hh/T9hh) on that turn card, so the river raise looks quite odd. Maybe his line makes sense in the context of his pre-flop strat, however.

Hi! I'm started reading your book, but it is complicated for me. Coz I'm from Russia and eng not my native language. Are you planning to make a translation?

This is a great book. I'm nearly at the end now.

It has taken me a long time to get this far because I've constantly being putting it down and going away and working on ranges. In my case it's definitely made me start working on all the things which I previously used to ignore and hope I could get away with. Lots of "a-ha" moments. You really find yourself applying it at the table. For example how textures affect villain check-back ranges.

This is definitely applicable to tournament play, but you need to engage your brain and work out how to apply it. For example in a tournament with 40BB stacks, usually the 4-bet is all-in, so much of what Carroters says about 4-bets actually applies more to our 3-bets (being the last bet before villain might go all-in or fold and should rarely flat) but also some of the things he writes about 3-bets also applies to our 3-bets (in both cases being the first re-raise after the open). The last chapter, which I haven't read yet deals specifically with varying stack sizes, but what I want to say is that you can use the approach Carroters uses to working out how to play well in cash games to work out for yourself how to play well in tournaments.

As the twoplustwo forum is a pretty tough peer-review, and people like to find faults anwyay, - 480 pages in I've found a maths example for calculating balanced river ranges which could be made a lot simpler.

This is all correct but there is a much quicker way to get this result if you use old school British-style odds instead of percentages. When we put money on a horse at 3 to 1 (US odds +300, decimal odds 4.00) the odds are fair (or we are indifferent to backing it) if it loses 3 times for every 1 time it wins.

Same in this case (a sportsbet being more equivalent to a "call" in poker), where villain is being asked to risk 59 BBs to win 141.5 BBs; for villain to be indifferent to making the call he needs to win 59 times for every 141.5 times he loses.

16 x 59 / 141.5 = 6.671 (the minor difference with one in the book is due to rounding the villain's required equity midway though the calculation).

So 7 bluff combos for our 16 value combos.

can someone explain what he meant by this second paragraph here? This statement in particular your value bet may not have positive expectation if called but it still has a higher expectation than a check would.
correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the EV of checking always 0? How can you have a -ev vbet thats still higher ev than a check

Folding, or in this case open-mucking river, is usually counted as zero.

He doesn't mean betting as a strategy is negative ev, he means that your share of the bet+call element is less than 50 percent, so you lose on that bit but you also have a share of the dead money in the pot so you are still better than open mucking.

The situation he is talking about would be e.g. potsize bet left on the river, if villain always bets or calls with better hands, but there aren't quite enough of them for us to check-fold, then we are always getting stacked by better hands, so the exact number is insignificant. The question is just whether we'd rather get extra money against his bluffs or his bluff catchers that we beat I.e. which there are more of.

The number of better hands only starts to become significant if there are some we can save money against somehow because he will check behind or if there are so many (e.g. 7-3 ratio) that we can save money by check-folding. So you can see why a bet might be best even if we lose more often than not when called.

Mason prefers limit poker, I don't claim to know a lot about it but as the size of the pot on the river is often significantly larger than the possible bet size I imagine this situation comes up a lot.

Hello!

I hope the following questions will not come off in any way somewhat jerkish, but may I ask the author directly, if

a.) you still play actively online
b.) which sites and which limits do you play?
c.) are any SNs from you outed or would you mind to out some?

Other than this, have heard already some good reviews on your book and will most likely get it^^

Regards,
Zrebna

"Carroters" on PS anyway. He's been posting vids on DC recently at 50NL.

I've the read the 50% of the book so far, and I have to say this book can and should be recommended for newbies as it is the best written material for today's NLHE out there.

TGM should be treated as a textbook for NLHE 101.

Is the author still alive? He doesn't reply anymore

I think he is working on a new book (according a video he made on 2C).

^ty

I have enjoyed reading this book very much so far! I am a little bit irked by hand 125 though:

Vs. a 26/22/64/59 aggro reg (vpip/pfr/flopcbet/turncbet) in the CO

hero BU A4hh, Co raise 2.5bb hero call, blinds fold

Flop Jd7h4d (6.5BB)

CO Bet 4BB,Hero calls

Turn Qh (14.5BB)

CO bets 12BB, Hero Calls 12BB

River 5c

CO Bets 27BB, Hero raises to 81.5 BB (all-in)


Author says flop and turn bets are very standard calls, and our Value hands dont mind just calling this turn. Why is that? If you have two pair or set, any heart, diamond, A, K, T, 9 can slow your chances of getting value on the river.

While true that villian could triple barrel fairly wide here on the river, his range should also be contracting on the turn, and with no cbet river stat, his river bet should be close to balanced to making it indifferent to call with some of our mediocre bluff catchers. Villian has a fair amount of value combos (QQ, JJ, 77, 44, QJ, KK, AA, AQ) that will never fold on this runout.

Overall, I feel villian has range advantage, but we don't block many of villians bluffing combos

Am i wrong thinking a river shove here is -ev?

Author says: The aim is to get Villain off of a substantial part of his value range such as [Qx KK AA] and maybe even better hands too if he is in the mood to give our line a lot of respect.

I feel that range won't budge on this runout

woops just saw now gto emperor had the same post on page 9 my bad

I'd like to discuss hand 64. In the hand, Villain is a reg who opens min from the button, Hero calls with A4s. Flop comes Jd3h2d. Hero checks, villain bets 2.5BB, Hero?

In the book, this is used as an example of a situation where we do not want to have any sort of checkraise range. The primary reason according to the author is due to the range advantage of the villain.

Here are my thoughts:

Our calling range here is quite wide since villain raised min here, and our range is capped because we are 3betting the top of our non-folding range preflop. So it is true that villain has a range advantage.

However, doesn't villain have very poor board coverage here? There is only one card on the flop that his range is likely to have hit, and in my opinion, regs are likely to cbet this type of flop too often. The vast majority of his cbets are with air.

I guess my question is, would you have a checkraising range here (that includes flushdraws, sets, and then enough bluffs to balance) if you have reason to believe that villain is cbetting close to his entire range? I agree that our range isn't great for checkraising, but the flop texture seems good for it.

Earlier in the book it suggests a 2x BTN range of (22+, A2s+, K2s+, Q2s+, J6s+, T6s+, 96s+, 86s+, 75s+, 64s+, 53s+, 43s, 32s, A2o+, K8o+, Q8o+, J8o+, T8o+, 98o, 87o)

and also that (22+,A2s+,K2s+,Q7s+,J7s+,T7s+,96s+,86s+,75s+,65s,5 4s,A2o+,K7o+,Q7o+,J7o+,T8o+,98o,87o,76o) are all profitable against that range. If we say we 3-bet
(88+, ATs+, KQs, AJo+) as our value hands + some bluffs, that leaves us with a calling range of (77-22,A9s-A2s,KJs-K2s,Q7s+,J7s+,T7s+,96s+,86s+,75s+,65s,54s,ATo-A2o,K7o+,Q7o+,J7o+,T8o+,98o,87o,76o)

In terms of being capped, as is often the case, he can have any set whereas we can only have middle or bottom set - that isn't normally a problem but in this case those sets are more diluted with other junk (often the caller is set-heavy as he has more pairs relative to other hands. The capping is more about the top section of the range rather than who can have the actual nuts.)

BTN has 583 combos, of which the top is
9 sets (1.5%, cumulative 1.5%)
2 two pair (0.3%, cumulative 1.8%)
18 over pairs (3.1%, 5.0%)
78 top pairs (13.4%, 18.4%)
42 "upper pairs" (7.2%, 25.6%)
24 middle pairs (4.1%, 29.7%)
18 bottom pairs (3.1%, 32.8%)

We have 500 combos, of which
6 sets (1.2%, 1.2%)
72 top pairs (14.4%, 15.6%)
24 upper pairs (4.8%, 20.4%)
15 middle pairs (3.0%, 23.4%)
15 bottom pairs (3.0%, 26.4%)

("upper pair" is my own terminology, referring to a pocket pair between top and middle cards on the flop. I also use "lower pair" to refer to a pair between the middle and bottom cards. By the turn it gets greyer, but "central pair" is a pocket pair which is 3rd pair on the turn).

So you see he his ahead all the way. Our 7th best combo is KJ whereas for him it's his 42nd best combo.

Given he can 3-barrel KJ+ (depending on run out) with a load of air and semi-bluffs too, why would a set check-raise and narrow his range so much.

Yes.
I would not be at all surprised if solvers told me that even top pair no kicker should be check-raised at least some of the time. (I don't use solvers though).

The EV is negative IF CALLED. Therefore, villain fold probability may reverse that.

Does the podcast still exist?

Also, any updates on the status of the next book?

Podcast hasn't been updated in a while and sadly some of the older episodes won't show up either :-( as there was an episode I wanted to listen to again.

I'm told that new podcast episodes are in production, stay tuned!

As for older ones, try looking on YouTube or on the author's website (link in the first page of this thread).

I used a solver with the above ranges:

Blind checks 99.9% of the time
BTN bets 73.4% (I used 55% pot)
Blind calls 47.3% and raises 10.3%
Check-raising range includes all pocket 2s and 3s, then a mix of a whole host of stuff, like wheel draws, flush draws, combo draws KJs with backdoor hearts, and some JTs-QJs with backdoor hearts.

Thank you for doing this. This hand example is one of the few times I disagreed with his conclusions in the book.

Peter Clarke aka (carroters) I am very interested in purchasing your book, but before doing so I would like to know more about the author and your success in poker maybe you can give a brief description on your success and credentials. Earnings, 2016/2017, stats, etc.. it would mean the world to me and I believe would give the future buyer a better understanding of the book. thank you hope to hear back soon!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The author hasn't logged into the site since 10th January so it's very unlikely you'll receive a reply to this.

https://carrotcorner.com/poker-coaching/coaching/