Those hands (AXs and pocket pairs) usually have the most equity vs a 5-bet calling range.

Not my level of book, 500 pages of theory and middle limit concepts for 6 max online cash games, but i got a good preflop strategy plus its some improvements from this thread, and i improved my post flop strategy by reading the 50 pages of hand examples, though i think twice before i will use any of the bluff raises, and in plo i use them hardly at all, just playing hwang that is more for my level and studied all his books and hand histories.

This application book author knows not only the theory but also the opponents, exploitive play, flop type adjustments deeper and blind and against blinds post flop play but not included in this book, and that is fine with me, there being other books, and i need to think differently anyway.

Not going to play the application in these hand histories all like it is, like i dont the plo ones either from the mastering plo book that are for high limits, though not that i am ignoring them either but i need to play the way that works for me and in my games, and in nlh i will try other lines also. I might not play the low suited connectors, so wont have too many bottom pairs.

This was my 4th nlh book after micro book, gold book, super system 2, and currently reading j.littles tourney book vol 1. And a plo8 book.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but I'm not sure you actually answered my question...my question in more simple terms is: Why does it say to not play AKo on page 46 but on on pg 42 it shows AK in the chart and says to play it.

Yeah but the book says AXs and pocket pairs play good against the range only if the opener doesn't defend with 15.2 percent of their opening range. Why is that? Why are the pocket pairs and AXs better against an opponent who doesn't defend with 15.2% of their range compared to a player who does defend 15.2% of their range?

These are the parts that seem contradicting to me:

Pg 42(maximum 3betting ranges): "so if we are the one 3betting then we should defend against a 4bet with AA-QQ/AK". So it says to defend against 4bets with AK.

Pg 46: "a raise first in of 15 percent is around what many players use for an UTG open, and the inability to 3bet and 5bet AKo for value against an UTG open is consistent with the theory from "maximum 3betting ranges" on starting on pg 41". So it says to NOT 3bet AKo here against UTG. But above it says to 3bet with AKo against UTG.

What consistency is it referring to? To me it looks like a contradiction. But I'm sure I'm misunderstanding something.

The front page shows a correction:
"Page 47 -- The equation at the bottom of the page multiple 7.5 by 0.6, which it should not. This means the EV of 4-betting in this example should be 3 big blinds higher."

How does that mean the EV of 4betting should be 3 big blinds higher? What equation results in 10.5 instead of 7.5?

Nevermind I was looking at the wrong equation. But I'm now wondering why does pg 47 assume that you win 12.5 big blinds when on pg 36 it says "the most common 4bets usually win around 15 to 16 BB's."

It does note on pg 47 that "slight changes in numbers will not greatly affect results" but this seems like it still would have a pretty signicant effect on the EV of certain hands.

Bumping in case this question was missed.

It's not contradictory. 3bet AK. Defend if you get 4b by calling, not 5betting.

Ian

Ok but where in the maximum 3betting section does it say to defend by calling and not by 5betting?

I really want to know what consistency the book is talking about when it says "the inability to 3bet and 5bet AKo for value against an UTG open is consistent with the theory from "maximum 3betting ranges".

What are the two things that are shared/consistent between those two sections that it's talking about?

It probably doesn't say "call" directly, but is implicit in the math (i.e. that's what's consistent ).

Look at the combos of an UTG open, then look at the range he has when he 4bets. Now when you look at the his unexploitable 5bet calling range I think you will see that AK is behind that range.

At least that's how I interpret it.


Ian

Can you tell me which math in the "maximum 3betting ranges" you're referring to that is consistent with this sentence: "the inability to 3bet and 5bet AK offsuit for value against an UTG open is consistent with the theory from "maximum 3betting ranges" starting on page 41"

I'm not seeing any math except math that shows AKo labelled as the "value component of 3betting range". But if it's listed as a value component, that doesn't tell me to not play it, that tells me to play it. Sigh I wish Matthew janda would answer. If I can't get questions answered faster I don't know how I'm going to ever finish the book.

I've got to be honest, it sounds like you're expecting to be able to lift a game plan directly from the book without really getting to grips with the fundamentals of how ranges work (and indirectly combinatorics). Me thinks you need to do more homework, but maybe Matthew can explsim better than me.

The math I was referring to isn't a specific line in the book, it's the fundamental principles it's based on.

As a final attempt to explain, assume a world where there is no calling, just bet or fold... now think about UTG opening a linear 16% range.

We 3bet, he 4bet defends 55%. So his range is now roughly 8%. Then we 5bet jam, but he only needs to defend by calling our allin 55% again... which is roughly 4%... AK is not in great shape against a 4% range.

Now in reality, villain is calling some of our 3bets, and not just 4betting... so his 4bet range is actually tighter than 8% by quite a bit... so his 5bet call range is tighter than 4% and AK is definitely now looking pale.

Hope this help, over and out.
Ian

Ian I appreciate your patience and effort to try and help. What you're saying makes sense and I do understand what the book is saying at a high level, it's just some of the specific sentences seem to throw me off. I'm probably over thinking a lot.

I think I'll just try and focus on the high level points for now (this one being "Always raising or folding is wrong, you should call sometimes too") and by the end I'm sure the little things will come together. Thanks again for the help.

I would really recommend not spending too much time on the pre-flop section. It didn't age well whereas (IMO) a lot of other material in the book did. For pre-flop advice you're better off with PokerSnowie and just accepting there are probably tons of mixed strategies pre-flop.

I think if you just go through the book one time and don't worry too much about anything you don't understand then concepts that once confused you will start to make sense.

Sounds good, Matt. Will do and thanks for the advice. I noticed you said on the front page that you'd probably toss out 35% of the preflop section, so I definitely won't stress it too much. Good to hear the other sections hold up more. Continuing on!

Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for this book. I bought it a while back and even though I skip most of the math and advanced stuff right now there is alot of stuff that just makes so much sense even though im not fast enough to recognize the spots and put it in practice yet. Also the way you think about your whole range and which hands go where is pretty amazing.

Keep going!

On pg 58 it says "we know the 3bet percentage from the blinds must be less than 37.5 combined, and at least 43 percent of the 3bets must be defended against 4bets. Hence, a good starting point is a 3betting range from the blinds which consist of 5 percent value hands and 7.5 percent bluffs."

Where did you get the 5 percent and 7.5 percent bluff values from? It's apparently somehow derived from the 37.5 and 43 but I'm not seeing the connection. Thanks.

I know 5 / 5+7.5 = 40 percent, which is close to 43 percent, but why did you pick 5 and 7.5 and not, say, 10 and 15 which would be the same ratio. The way you say "hence" leads me to belive there's some obvious point I'm missing that leads from 37.5/43 to 5/7.5.

Another question, on pg 59 it says "and since an expected value of only 1.68 big blinds is less than one-third of an at least 5.5 big blind pot, it appears that the button could open with extremely weak hands and still have an expectation greater than this"

1. If the math just showed his expectation is 1.68 blinds, how could he possibly open with weaker hands and "have an expectation greater than this" Wouldn't opening weaker hands make his EV less?

2. Why does it matter that 1.68 is less than one third the pot?

I'm probably not going to answer too many more pre-flop questions in general, since I've made a lot of new content on that elsewhere and realistically the pre-flop section isn't something I can do a quick fix for.

I think you're much better off trying to read through the book, making what you don't understand, then asking questions towards the end.

As for where the 1.68BB comes from, my guess is that's the EV we need post-flop and it's not hard to have an EV that high with a very weak hand post-flop when the pot is 5.5 BB and you're in position against a weak range. In reality almost any hand will likely have an EV much higher than that. Nothing special happens at 1/3 of the pot, it's just me pointing out that 1/3 of the pot isn't very much when there's only 1 other player contesting it.

Sorry to drop in with one of your quotes from the second page. It seems to contradict the way i have been thinking up till now although it may depend on the specific situation. Maybe you can clear things up for me and help me seeing things correctly ?

So you consider the 4 bettor the one who payed (more than us) to be in this flop situation.

I always thought of it the other way around as the preflop (re)raiser had preflop fold equity and this providing a discount on the hands he plays.

For example, in my mind, this discount justified 3betting in the blinds with hands that are likely dominated by the LP raisers calling range. We 3bet for example QJs/QTs in the blinds. When we are being called, we are OOP and risk domination. However, if he folded to our 3bets 50%, i viewed the money i make there as a discount on the hands i play in this disadvantageous situation.

Now this is a different situation than the one i quoted from you. Maybe the difference is that in my scenario our 3bet is very likely to be called rather than reraised while in your scenario, the 4bettor is more likely to be reraised instead of called. Is that the main difference, or am i looking at things the wrong way even in a scenario where reraises are less likely ?

May I ask where your new content is?

If i can get in a last question..earlier you said that youd prefer 3betting low suited Ax over suited connectors, why is that? It seems to me that suited connectors have many more outs to a strong hand (straight, flush, trips or 2pair) and are more likely to get paid when we do hit because the straights, trips and 2pair will not be obvious, while Axs only draws to the nut flush, and when they hit top pair or 2pair its difficult to get value from worse and often gives reverse implied odds against stronger Ax. I understand that there are some blocking effects with the ace but according to my calculations they are pretty minimal, and villains continuing range would in no way solely be hands that include an ace anyway...am I missing something?

If you 3-bet w/ A5s and villain calls with KJs, you have the best hand, and you'll flop better than villain does most of the time. Having an equity advantage is obviously good for your winrate.
If you 3-bet w/ 76s and villain calls with KJs, you have the worst hand, and villain will flop better than you most of the time. Being at an equity disadvantage is not so great for your winrate.

In case this isn't obvious, just think about your UTG opening range. You presumably open ATs, but probably not 76s. You should prefer ATs precisely because it plays better when called than 76s does. Axs gets called by worse. 7-high does not.

FWIW, 76s can be a +EV 3-bet in some situations, but Axs does better almost always. Blockers + equity and playability when called = profit

By low Axs im talking about A9s-A2s, weighted towards more wheel aces A5s-A2s because I would rather 3bet them than A6-A9s in most circumstances. I think ATs is significantly better than those hands, and im not disputing that ATs is a better 3bet or hand in general than 76s. I completely agree that ATs is a good 3bet and plays well there.

Im going to disagree though that A5s-A2s are going to flop better than KJs, I think KJs will flop way better than A5s. They can both flop gutshots and flush draws. Axs can flop low pair of 5s which is a pure bluff catcher, and top pair weak kicker, which cant get value from any other ace, so if I flop a pair I wont want to put in more than a street of value in either case. KJs flops a pair of jacks with 2nd kicker which can get value from JTs and QJs, as well as more underpairs which are inclined to stay around more than on an ace high flop, so it can get more than 1 street of value there. It flops a pair of kings with a fairly weak kicker, but can still get value from occasional KTs and underpairs. It also flops more straight draws, and those with more outs so we are much more likely to hit a straight with KJs than A5s, and we are also much more likely to be able to barrel or reraise with enough outs to be profitable even if we havent hit yet, unlike A5s which cant continue past 1 street with a gutshot in most situations. So given the choice, id pick KJs in a 3bet pot over A5s every time.