What sample size at 1/3 and 2/5 was used to design these strategies?

Sure, but those people are rarely studying the game or even reading a book on it. Most people who are willing to put in that effort are likely the kind of people who want to move up in stakes.

I could be wrong, but on the first thread about this book I believe I remember hearing they played “300 hours.”

If true, that’s such a small sample size to base conclusions on that it’s mind boggling.

You might be able to use a solver to get answers to theoretical questions like that. However, solvers are not designed for 5-way pots and assume everyone is playing perfectly, so I am not sure how you could use a solver to determine how to play 1/3.

Hardly anyone moves up to NL games above 2/5. In most places that have poker, there aren't even any games that big. I think there are plenty more people who may be interested in the book. I'm certainly interested in reading it, and I only play NLH when I'm waiting to get into another game, with no desire to play higher.

I think limping with KK after 4 limped in already, it will only make sense in a solver if you tinker the ranges such that the guys behind you hate 3betting but love raising limps. Or they never fold to a 3bet. If it only yields higher EV when you tinker with the ranges and cherrypick the results, then the solver is going a long way in proving it's a bad play.

You can rationalize bad plays with solver work the same way you can with back of napkin work, but solver work is a lot closer to actual proof.

i would suggest playing better in a game where the money you can make is worth the life you are spending. if you want to just get better at poker through reps play 5cent/10cent online but when you go to the casino dont be a complete sucker and pay 3 big blinds a hand in rake to waste your life.

I always find these threads about 1-2 and 1-3 laughable as people go into wish cast contortions to tell me how beatable the games are for "real money". lets do a little thought experiment:

times everything by 10 but keep the same players. so now the blinds are $10-20 the average stack is 1200 bucks and the rake is ..... $70 A HAND!!!! who is winning in that game? at $70 a hand 29 hands an hour the casino is taking $2030.00 AN HOUR OFF THE TABLE LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. Again, who is winning in this game that takes over $2000 an hour off the table???? Im sure one of you dorks is gonna mess with my numbers a little so your dream of quitting your job and playing 1-3 isn't ruined but youre just moving the deck chairs on the titanic. live micro stakes is a dead fuqqing end.

(a real 10-20 game is raked at appx. $22 an hour time per player and they will still all claim its almost too high, obv the avg. player is much much better but still)

The rake is generally a maximum of $5/hand, not $5 every hand. The BBJ money is not rake. If you are playing relatively tight, you are playing less rake per hour. The casino is not getting $200/hour in a 1/2 or 1/3 game. That would require 40 hands for the maximum rake in an hour. With multiway pots, there are nowhere near 40/hands/hour. Maybe 25 hands/hour and at most $100 rake per hour, not counting BBJ money. The casino probably takes slightly less than the $6/ half hour time charge for a 2/5 game. Anyway, you are not playing 10/20 players, and the play is different.

So my original test I did in my 1/3 NL game was in 2017, where I did a 1 hour sample size in 10 consecutive sessions, waiting for the table to become "run-of-the-mill" (no blind raising maniacs but no rock gardens either). I cut the 10th sample to just half an hour due to my 10 handed table becoming a lot shorter. Bottom line: 61% if hands were raised preflop (i.e. about 2/3rds, so almost twice as many hands limped as raised).

Last night I did a one-off 1 hour sample, again waiting for my table to become run-of-the-mill to do so. Obviously small sample size, but non-surprising results: 22 hands raised versus 9 limped versus 1 chopped blinds = 69% of hands were raised preflop.

I have no idea how everyone else's game plays, but if 2/3rds of hands are being raised preflop then limping/overlimping from almost anywhere to expect a raise is a perfectly acceptable play. It can certainly be argued whether it is more EV / less EV than doing something else (although a crapload of personal skillz level will play into that too). But lol @ it being horrible.

Gnothatin',justsayin'G

LOL

That’s a Bingo!!!

You make some ridiculous claim, and add something clever that you expect to be contradicted. Those numbers are absurd. You are claiming the rake is twice what it actually is. If that were true, the casino would be taking as much per hour in dollars from a 1/3 game as a 10/20 game. There is no way the rake per hour is higher than time for a 2/5 game. Most decent players should be playing much tighter than average, because they are not limp/calling with all sorts of garbage, so the rake they pay per hour is lower. Yes, the rake is a more significant factor than at mid to high stakes. If you play high stakes and have never played 1/3 even waiting for a game, then you don't know what the rake really is, even if you are an expert on high stakes NLHE play.

FWIW, a quick look at some of the threads in the Venues & Communities forum will illustrate that there are very few places where $5 is the maximum rake. From what I can tell, the U.S. (and especially Vegas) for some reason seem to be lagging far behind basically everyone else in this regards (so enjoy it while it lasts).

My 1/3 NL game hasn't seen a $5 maximum rake since 2016, and is currently sitting at $9 + $1 BBJ drop + $1 high hand promo (plus typically a $1 tip). There is *easily* $200++ coming off the table every hour on most LLSNL tables.

Gnothatin',justsayin'G

What claim did I make? I do not recall making a single claim. Why are you saying said claim is ridiculous?

Limon made a claim. Perhaps you should direct your posts to him.

You can of course solve whatever multiway spot you want. You can also set the solver to assume players have various leaks preflop, postflop, or both. If you didn't know that, you haven't paid attention. The technique is called "nodelocking" if you want to look into that. For NLHE this is trivial stuff (much harder in PLO).

It's a 100% practical question: "Should I limp-reraise AA rather than raise?" and easy to solve. In the process you wil find various other hands to do that with, so there's an opportunity for personal growth.

But these nerdicalities was not my point. What I meant was that there's no reason for a book written in 2023 to use pen-and-paper math/conclusions when we've had solvers around since 2015. The authors missed out on an opportunity to combine something they presumably do well (make good assumptions about how live games play) with modern methods. At least it sounds like they didn't do solver work to support their strategies, correct me if I'm wrong.

If you want to convince people they can make good money from $1-$3, at least write the book right.

i just kept it real and got the copium response i expected. its funny the the $2 a hand for jackpot isn't considered rake to these clowns, tell that to the players raked off the table. HURRRRR DURRRRR they take half of every pot but its for "jackpot" so you actually haven't gone broke and aren't on the rail you will THEORETICALLY get it all back in a decade! HURRRRR DURRRRRR limons example of $2000 an hour in 10-20 is crazy! Its actually only $1750!!! everyone could beat $1750 an hour TAKEN OFF THE TABLE!! HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Thread delivers

Guy writes Theory of Poker 45 years ago

But needs to read research papers and spend thousands and thousands of hours at table to write about how to beat a 1/3 nlh crowd

correct and fair point

I’m sorry, but the modern low stakes no limit game has obviously passed Mason by.

Just to clarify, I've played approximately 300 hours, mostly at $1-$3, since David and I agreed to do this book. But over the years I have lots of hours in live no-limit games. The same is true for David.

Mason

I don't agree. In the $1-$3 games that I play in, mostly at The Bellagio, there is often someone in the game, and sometimes more than one, who is brand new to poker, and as long as they play long enough (which usually isn't very long) is virtually guaranteed to lose all their chips. Couple this with other bad players and the game is highly beatable.

However. with this said, I agree the rake is too high.

Mason

I agree with your post except for one thing. We rarely come to a conclusion about whether to make a certain unusual play. Rather we talk about the factors, that would lead you to do it or not do it. Sometimes we list several pros and cons. For instance we mention that you should play more hands if your opponent or opponents rarely bluff the river. Fold more on the river but call more preflop. We might go on to say that since most small stakes players don't bluff enough on the river you may not be seeing as many flops as you should. Or that you are seeing too many if an opponent is bluffing GTO style.

What we don't do is tell people which hands to add to their preflop calls if an opponent's river pot size bets are 5 percent to be bluffs, compared to 15%, compared to the usually correct 33%. Nor do we tell you which hands are worth preflop pot sweetener raises if limpers are 20% to be slowplayers versus 3%. Our goal in almost all cases is to show you what plays should be contemplated, what factors should play into your decision, and some general observations about what factors might be different than usual when playing bad players. If you have a solver on your desk while you are reading the book and you decide to plug specific numbers for the factors we talk about, that's fine. You will not be refuting the vast majority of the words in our book when you get your
(very specific) answer.

MM : Can't wait to buy a copy. Looks like exactly the book I need.

Won't be replying to any more posts til the book comes out in a few weeks. The OP might have given a little bit of the wrong impression about its general content and the posts are reflecting that.