Potentially a really dumb question but is the key assumption that you must defend enough to make our opponent indifferent to bluffing really valid?

As an example we defend in the BB against the SB min raise. You can easily construct a range that once we get to the flop that the overall equities of the two sets of ranges are different. In such an instance you would not expect the overall EV of SB and BB in equilibrium to be the same.

If the EV is not the same then any assumption that we must construct a response to the villain's actions so that they are zero can't hold across all decision points.

IF this is true, then it isn't clear to me how we can make the assumption that it would still be true for a decision in relation to defence against a bet on a bluff?

It depends on the situation for whether or not you have a clear minimum defending frequency.

If you bet $6 into $12 on the flop and villain raises to $18, then yes you need to defend at least 50% or raising ATC is profitable and villain will never fold to your flop bet since raising two blank cards is more +EV than folding.

If you min-raised the button with antes and the BB called with an awful range due to getting amazing odds, then the BB will almost certainly not defend aggressively enough on the flop to prevent the button from being able to profitably bet ATC. That's because the button's range is just too strong and has the advantage of position.

There are more difficult examples but in general there are clear minimum defending frequencies against raises but that's not usually the case against bets.

Hope that helps!

Thanks Matthew for the response....more food for thought, but I think that makes a lot of sense

Really stupid (and no doubt irritating) question. I bought this book in its early days (I thought off of a personal website of the author but I could be wrong) and wanted to go back to it today but after a machine rebuild it isn't in any of my e-readers. I double checked all my ebook accounts (Amazon etc.) and I didn't get it from any of them - where was the book first available so I can see if the record of my purchase still exists so I can get a download?

Wish I could help but unfortunately I have absolutely no idea. I would try to contact ProfessionalPoker or 2+2 as they may be able to help you.

That does actually help. Now that I see the name and site pretty sure I bought the book from ProfessionalPoker so that is a start! Thanks!

Hello Matthew. I have a question about Part Three: Post-flop bet sizing.
It says "Small bets are often effective against polarized range".
Here is the example.

I open raise JJ on the UTG and Button calls.

The board is AA3r. In this board, I should small bet right? Because his range is polarized. (Either he has very strong hand, such as ace triple or air)
I don't want him to see free card, especially K and Q so should bet.

Is this right situation to small bet? If I small bet, how much do I need to bet usually? Can I use descending bet sizing structure at this time?

For example, bet 50% on the flop, 40% on the turn and 30% on the river.
or just bet 40% all of 3 streets?

Also, do I need to small bet too when we have very strong hand to make my hand not obvious?
For example, if I have AK on the AA3r board, do I need to small bet?

JJ on that board is a very interesting spot. You can make a case for both betting and checking. I would say QQ is definitely a check and TT is definitely a bet.

Bet sizing I would say at least 50% on flop, but I'm not sure you're getting 3 streets of value every time.

Interested to see what Matthew thinks

I've recently been subscribing to WCGRider's new coaching site, and his preflop hand range chart (and his playstyle) is totally different than the ones I've read in Applications of NL Holdem. For example, APNL devoted a few pages on why 3betting AKo vs UTG is a mistake, but WCGRider (and a lot of regs I play with at 100NL+) have been 3betting a very wide range MP vs UTG. In this strat, AKo, AQs, QQ+ are all 3betted along with equal parts bluffs.

Given that this 3bet range is too loose according to APNL, what would be the best counterpay to these types of hyper aggression preflop?

The pre-flop hand chart in this book should not be used. It used models/assumptions that don't work well for pre-flop.

I like PokerSnowie for pre-flop. I haven't seen WCGRider's though I imagine it's very good.

You bet for two reasons:

1) To deny equity
2) To make the pot bigger in case you win

So you need to pick a bet sizing that best accomplishes some combination of these objectives. If you bet too big, you'll be unlikely to win the pot. If you bet too small (approaching 0% of the pot), you won't deny any equity.

It's hard to say what bet sizing is best on this flop, but if you do bet you should bet quite small. The same logic will need to be applied on the turn.

Long story short, this hand can probably put 1 (and maybe even two) small bets in somewhere, whether it be on the flop or after checking the flop and betting the turn (if the flop checks through). If you bet all 3 streets it's likely a mistake unless you bet very very small, and of the top of my head going 50%, 40%, and then 30% will be too big.

Is this book basically like phil newells intelligent poke player? I know his is mostly about limit hold em, but are the concepts similar with the gto and math stuff? Thanks

Amusingly, Snowie says the best c-bet-size for the entirety of its range in that spot (if UTG opened for 3bb) is 2x pot... but it checks 100% of the time. Go figure.
If you open for 2.25x, then half pot on the flop works better. In either case, the BTN has very few combos containing kings or queens, so JJ doesn't need much 'protection'. It could get one street of value from smaller underpairs though, if you bet small. With JJ, if you bet the flop and get called, I think you check almost any turn card apart from your 2-outers, because you're either way ahead or way behind.

But what does it all mean? If u bet and get called u check then gild to river? If u bet flop and turn u check river then fold ? U still gotta play poker. What differnce overall will it make. I think people that play hold em today are so concerned with keeping pots small that they lose tons of money when they actually have the winning hand. This small balls approach to cash games I think is losing money.

Hi Matt

I just got the book and then saw the stuff in the thread about the pre-flop charts.

My question is, in the pre-flop section you talk about it being theoretically correct to at times flat 3-bets and 4-bets OOP. Is that something you still hold to or has that changed to?

Thx

LB

You mean flat the 3-bet OOP like I open CO, BTN 3-bets, and I call? Yeah, you should do that absolutely all the time.

Likewise, you should 3-bet the button from the BB and call the 4-bet all the time.

Optimal poker involves lots and lots of calling and being pissed off about it. You're almost always getting a very good price when flatting a 4-bet (and often 3-bet too) so you frequently need to defend by calling even if you dislike your spot.

Hopefully this will help. Ignore my book (if you have read it), ignore pokersnowie, and just clear your mind for a second.

When you are playing on the flop, your bets and raises need to do some combination of denying the equity and/or making the pot bigger in case you win. If your bet isn't accomplishing either of these particularly well, then you shouldn't bet. No exceptions. Even when you see someone bet their entire range on a 732r board, they're betting their entire range because every hand in their range accomplishes these objectives by betting.

Ok, cool. Now, how well you accomplish these objectives and whether or not betting or check-raising on the flop will be superior with a given hand depends both on your range and how strong your opponent's range is. But it's totally fine to just pick your line on the flop based on the above and then just deal with it when you get to the turn. You don't need to think about every single possible turn and river card and every single possible bet sizing the opponent could take. Sure, the more of this stuff you can take into account on the flop the better, as this will allow you to better figure out if betting or check-raising is superior when two lines look close. But you shouldn't get too bogged down with this stuff. Be confident that you're good enough to pick the correct line now and you'll deal with picking the correct line on the next street when you get to it.

As for the AA3r board when we have JJ, you have to figure out if betting 100%, 50%, 30%, 15%, 0% etc on the flop best accomplishes your objectives of retaining your hand's showdown value, making the pot bigger in case you win, and/or denying equity. It's not easy to do, but as our time traveling friend Arty McFly pointed out, it may be hard to justify a flop bet unless you are putting at least some Kx/Qx/KQ type hands in villains range (since these are the hands which are most important to deny equity) or you're betting very very small as this keeps the opponents range wide and weak and causes us to lose less on average vs AX than we will if we bet bigger.

So if I'm playing, and I have JJ in MP vs a BTN caller on AA3r, all of this goes through my mind. I basically end up with concluding "I'm either going to bet 35% of the pot or less" and I would imagine the EV of this is very close. Maybe some high stakes sicko knows if 30% or 15% or 0% is best against some given range, but I personally don't nor do I really care all that much. I also don't know how I'm going to play every turn or river card, but I know I think we need to either check the flop or make a very small or bet. So I'm just going to take that line and then move on with my life and figure out what I think is best on the turn once I get there. I don't even have close to the whole hand planned out.

Haven't read his book but I'd imagine they're quite different.
Hopefully someone else can chime in.

Ok thank u for the responses

Limit holdem pros can add fine points into their game with the help of the bot hands analysed there. Lhe. They can also get an overall understanding of gto. It wont be necessary for a nlh player, nor to plo player. The latter would use the masterig plo book and the first this janda book to cover the same and more.

That's what I wanted to know

Thx

LB

Another really dumb question. I don't get the argument for betting being to deny equity and make the pot bigger in case you win.

Surely every bet with any hand against any range where you have non zero equity achieves this.

I don't understand how this reason for betting helps in the decision making process or can be right

I can understand (I think) why Matthew doesn't like the other oft quoted 'you bet to fold out better hands, or to get called by worse' because that doesn't factor in the benefits of denying equity but....


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes, but you (usually) can't bet 100% of your range, because it would include too much junk, so you'd be too exploitable and would basically be spewing too often.
When building a betting range, you look for the hands that make the most "obvious" value-bets, the best bluffing candidates, and the hands that have the most to gain from protecting their equity (or preventing villain from realizing his).
Does that answer your question, or do you need an example HH, or have I missed the point?

This is part of my point.

A lot of bets meet Matthew's reason for betting. So whilst Matthew maybe correct that his reasons are necessary conditions for a bet, they can't all be sufficient reasons for betting....ie it is an incomplete reason for betting.

Hi Artie,

If I can jump in I would appreciate an example of the " the betting range, the obvious value bets, and the best bluffing candidates"

btw, always enjoy reading your posts in "Poker Theory" good stuff

LB