lol this video is hilarious.

Yes the weakest part of the book is the hand history examples but the concepts behind the examples are very good.

Bart isn't understanding the thought process of Mason in that AKss hand. Yes it is a standard 3bet in the BB when HJ raises to $10, BTN calls and you are in the BB. It's like a 3bb mistake to call instead of 3bet.

But Mason's point (again you need to read between the lines and not take everything at face value) is that if he 3bets his opponent's will put him on the exact hand he actually has. There's a whole chapter on not playing face up and Mason is saying he will lose value postflop because his hand and what his opponent thinks he has are the same thing. Which is definitely true, especially against highly exploitable players.

Bart is a pretty good player but I think he is selling Sklansky/Malmuth a bit short here and dismissing their poker knowledge in an attempt to boost his own brand in CLP.

Thanks for the video.

Where did you come up with that 3bb figure? Seems like it should a lot higher. 3-betting pre allows the pot to be huge. Every street will play bigger with a 3! pre.

Mason's solution to not playing face up is to limp AK? Why doesn't he just expand his pre-flop raising range?

In all honesty, I think the EV difference of calling or shoving is negligible. Is that the goal to sort of scrape the bottom of the barrel for some +EV? Just asking.

In real world terms, if this is a set or something, we can let villain check to us on a spade river and save ourselves 50$. I don't see this as being a flush very often.

I think you are confusing two hands. He limped AK in EP in one hand but I am talking about when he has AKss in BB vs a HJ RFI and BTN call.

The 3BB (it's actually closer to 2.5BB) figure is just a theoretical figure and shouldn't be taken too seriously in these games.

The hand history doesn't matter it's about the concept for future hands.

1. Do you know why there an EV difference between calling and 3betting when frequency for calling is 0%


2. Wouldn't the EV of 3betting increase against a more realistic BTN calling range? Which would be much wider in a 1/3 game.

1. I'm assuming they made a separate sim and added that result into the initial sim but I don't know for sure.

2. Yes it would. I would always 3bet here with AKss but I understand Mason's conceptual point even though he's terrible at articulating why he actually made the play he did.

Making fun of the HH's without realizing the point of them is a cheap shot imo and show's a lack of critical thinking.

it does but im going to try to run it on my own at some point. is not that i think you did anything wrong but just want to make sure as it's unintuitive to me. has been years since ive had pio installed lol

JFC first hand managed to play KK worse than the one in this thread.


2nd top comment (and liked by Bart):

Seems like he's merging fps with omc at 1/3, which is unnecessary and a mistake.

The AKs in the BB hand is funny to me, since the concept is not playing overly face-up. But this hand has us potting flop with an overpair on a drawy board, which is pretty much the most frequent face-up thing I see when I'm at the tables.

For this example hand, it's pretty clear that calling two-thirds of our stack or shoving are going to be near-equivalent actions. Similar to how 3-bet shoving AI on flop with a draw that you know has no fold equity is equivalent to calling off your whole stack; the ranges and risk to reward ratio are the same.

It's different because of preflop. Most live 1/2, 1/3 players have a 3bet range of something like QQ+/AK so combo wise you will have 16 combos of AK and 18 combos of QQ/KK/AA.

It's much more important to not play face up when your opponent puts you on a hand that you have almost half the time.

As for your second point, everything is clear and obvious after it is explained. That's how it goes.

The concept that you should be shoving into your opponent's with <50% equity when you can't play rivers well is not obvious.