I am not sure why anyone would doubt a former high stakes player was making $1K/week at 1/3 NL. Probably more than some 1/3 reg who has been playing for 2 years and can't make more than that doing anything else. Someone who is currently beating high stakes could probably make significantly more, after making adjustments. Maybe he was playing 1/3 because the Vegas midstakes NLHE and LHE games are so bad and filled with nitty regs. Normally someone who made $25/hour at 1/3 could make more at 2/5.

Limping AK UTG seems good, depending on the table and stack sizes. Some 1/3 games have mostly limped pots, in which case it would be a disaster. However, you could determine whether to call, 3-bet normally or shove depending on the action etc. With some weaker hands, you could also fold to some action.

With a small pp in ep, GTO says open fold, and that is correct in most 5/10 NL and above and online games, but that would be terrible in a 1/3 game and most 2/5 games. If normal raises are getting several callers and rare 3-bets, then raising normally is best, as it is most disguised. You could raise smallish, and maybe with some other hands, but your raise small raise would seem weaker, and you raise normal like to 12 or 15 range stronger. You could limp/call, but your limp/call range might be weighted toward pps. Usually, it is better not to raise normally, as the players at 1/3 will not be able to exploit the information you give.

Just automatically never limping and always 3-betting premium hands loses value at low stakes, which is partly what the examples in the Introduction point out.

Are you saying that it is simple to tell the solver stuff like "he will take 2-1 allin odds on a flush draw with one to come?" And then ask it how to adjust to that on earlier streets?

How bout "nine handed pot limit (after first bet) game" one and two dollar blinds. Rake is five dollars if there is a flop. All players have 250 in front of them. The first player in must bet precisely 15 dollars or fold. Then its pot limit. Thats close to the smaller Vegas Omaha game but I don't think that solvers know omaha. But my question probably has a similar answer for holdem. Which is
"If the solver assumes all players are experts, what percentage of hands are either blind steals or walks?"

The way you get bad players to give you their money is to bet your good hands AK maximizes by betting if in EP or LP checking limping with such a strong hand smacks of someone trying to be tricky more than someone trying to play good poker

Well, I finally watched most of this. Four comments:

1. We deliberately wrote these examples with incomplete information. They are designed to create interest in the book, a "teaser" as one poster called them, and a full book will follow that contains a lot of information. And if you watch the video, Hanson clearly struggles to add information to justify some of his comments without any idea as to how we were thinking about these hands or what even our purpose was to put them in the "Introduction" to this book.

2. We knew and understood that posting this part of the "Introduction" that it would create a lot of discussion and Hanson's video is exactly the type of response we anticipated.

3. Now that a preliminary "Table of Contents" has been posted, it should be clear that there's a lot more to this book than these hand examples, and there are also lots of other hand examples embedded in the chapters that illustrate the ideas and concepts we talk about.

4. Also, and this is for Bart, we only posted part of the "Introduction." Here's another part:

A Note on Our Notation

In the Two Plus Two book, Winning in Tough Hold ’em Games: Short Handed and High-Stake Concepts for Limit Hold ’em by Nick Grudzien and Geoff Herzog, the authors use a system for determining position by counting backwards from the button. And even though it's a limit book, we’ll use the same system in this text.

Specifically, they count the button as position zero and in a nine handed game they count the under-the-gun player as position six. We’ll use the same system in this book slightly modified. We’ll still call the player on the button the “button,” and we’ll still call the first player to act “under-the-gun.” But we’ll dispense with the terms lojack, highjack, and cutoff. Instead, what we’ll say is something like “three off the button” to describe the player who has the button three positions to his left. We think that doing things this way is more descriptive as to what is actually happening and makes some of the ideas to follow a little easier to understand.

Is there a solver that handles 6 people limp in and you raise to 10xBB and it goes 5 ways to the flop; you c-bet half pot and 3 people call, etc.? I thought solvers assumed correct play and HU pots.

The book seems great, but the Introduction is maybe not the best approach to present it. I suppose if any publicity is good publicity, getting something like the Hanson video will help sell it.

And with post number 45 the 1/2 crusher deuceblocker lets the poker world know. still does not like page 6.

Post 49. Hates page 6.

Lol it is one third of the devil’s number

He shouldn't have to do so, he can always say what he thinks and show his ignorance.

Please avoid personal attacks. Please limit discussion to the topic. This is not appropriate.

This is an anonymous forum, and I am not going to discuss my poker play, results, or history. I am not experienced at online NLHE cash, but working on it, because online games, limit games, and tournaments are less practical or available.

I think I made some interesting points about the book, its possible value, and adjustments to low stakes live play.

basically yeah that simple
also omaha is solved too already

Aside from these authors, I haven't seen anything using solvers for 1/3 or 2/5 NL. Does it exist? Would it only work once the pot got HU?

The KK example was partially chosen because there were two unusual plays in one hand that might intrigue the intermediate player. The fact is that our main target audience is not the readers of this forum because they already know much of the stuff we explain in the book. But there are probably four or five chapters that will get you guys to thinking and reconsidering stuff that might translate even to your bigger games. I might not have even posted the introduction or the book announcement here, but Mason loves you fellows too much to deprive you of the possibility of making some extra cash.

So whats the answer to my Omaha question?

Also even if it is that simple, the fact remains that those who don't understand approximately why the solver says what it says (in most cases) will be at a disadvantage against those who do. You can't be inputting assumptions at a live table.

I don't know if Larry the Legend is a 5/10NL or above crusher, but that is a completely different game, and maybe hard for someone like that to understand 1/3NL. From the Hanson videos I listened to in the car, it is GTO influenced, and looking at bluffing and value betting combinations, etc. Mostly HU pots with a lot of preflop reraising. If you went into 1/3 playing it like 5/10 or any reasonable stake online, you would not be playing optimally at all.

Well I need to rent a server and run it and then I have to post all ranges here or what you want me to do exactly?

Agree with latter statement.

Lets just rename the thread” deuceblockers 99 interesting points on why david skalansky has no business publishing page 6 in his new book”.

Write a book if you are going to write a book deuce. And until then read the book before you bring another interesting point you cant wait to share or troll with.

you know why the solver does what it does? I find that hard to believe

I dont think its a good idea to comment on solver stuff until youve played a bunch of hands and youve studied solver solutions or hands for 40hrs+

ps you cant play a bunch of hands live

You can't play a bunch hands online that play like most 1/2 and 1/3 live games. I can't imagine any solvers are optimized for them either.

I want to see if it agrees with me that if you have to come in for 15 in a 1-2 blind game that will be raked 5 if there is a flop, there will rarely be a flop if stacks are moderate and the players are all near GTO.

After it does it. Not before. Big difference.

could you elaborate then on how limping in with the second best starting hand in NLH, then folding the flop when getting excellent pot odds will earn me more money because, quite frankly, that seems to me to be a recipe for lighting cash on fire.

So you think Bart is wrong when he says this is bad poker?

two positions to the right of the button. The first four players limped in and David only called. The next two players folded, the small blind called, and the big blind checked. it's the first hand in the OP and David had KK

Maybe one of the players to act was always raising limpers, so they generally will not fold to his raises. So it will come back to him with like 75 in the pot and a 3! from a latish position limper will look like BS, not AA/KK, so probably there will be callers, so a huge pot.

I am not writing a book. Don't want to give away my secrets.