I don't have Applications in front of me.

But the idea behind the bluffing to value betting ratio is that once you bet the river, your opponent is indifferent to calling with his bluff catchers. So he's effectively lost. So if you laying your opponent a price on the turn that requires him to only win 30% of the time for his call to break even, then you need to be following through with your river bets 70% of the time (this way, you'll check 30% of the time and he'll win, and you'll bet 70% of the time and he'll effectively lose).

I am, relatively,new to both the game and to forums so please bear with me.

Regarding, 'pot odds' and the 'bluff to value ratio'.
On p111 Mr Janda makes reference to two points. Point one is the principal that... The size of the bet relative to the size of the pot determines how often you bluff. I can see how if villain checks on the turn and river and hero bets IP then the pot odds determine the bluff to value ratio. However I am perplexed as to quite what is going on on the flop,where, in the preceding example villain bets and hero raises.

I've read, elsewhere, that the pot odds determine the bluff to value ratio but my understanding of the terms seems to break down here. In the example it is explained that villain risks 0.57PSB for a potential reward of 1.57PSB. I'm not feeling concerned that my calculations give a figure that rounds to 0.56PSB as I feel this is most likely a trivial matter in context. My question is... Is not the bet of 6BB by villain 'dead money' and the pot odds determined by the the amount the bet is 'raised by' rather than the figure it is 'raised to'? This would mean that villain risks 0.375PSB on the flop?

I'm not presuming to have found a mistake, rather, I feel there is an important principal I've missed along the way? I also feel I perhaps lack adequate language to succinctly describe this matter?

I'm loving this book but have been focussed on this part for a week. I'd be very grateful for any help in illuminating this area of interest.

Greetings. I am finding a point on page 118 of 'Applications' a little hard to grasp and I wonder if anyone can clarify.

The point is contained in 'requires us to lower our value raising to bluff raising ratio on the flop.'. There are two aspects to my uncertainty.

Firstly, why does checking the turn with a bluff require changing the ratio? Is it the case that including the hand in the betting range necessarily changes the ratio by virtue of it being another bluff OR is it the checking which necessitates changing the ratio

Secondly, am I right in saying that the lowered ratio would therefore be more bluff heavy (perhaps I've been reading too long)?

Perhaps you could advise us, Matt. Thanking you in advance.

Honestly I'm having a lot of trouble understanding your questions. Can we start with one clear question at a time and then if we get that worked through we'll move on to the next?

Thanks for replying Matthew.

Re. Post #1677. I'll try to make myself clear.

On page 112 you state that, by calling, our opponent risks 12BB for a potential gain of 32BB and yet you then state that we must again bet the turn 73% of the time as the raise is approximately 57%. I understand that 12BB is how much our opponents bet is raised by and that the raise is 18BB. I am asking why the 6BB initial bet by our opponent is not dead money, the pot odds, 0.375, and the amount we must bet the turn then approximately 79%?

I hope I'm being clear and apologies if I've asked a dumb question.

Re. Post #1677 and #1680

I think I now understand, how this works, how you arrived at the figure of 73% for the frequency with which we must bet the turn and thus the answer to my question.

Given that:

Pot = 8BB
Bet by villain = 6BB
Raise by hero = 18BB
Call by villain = 12 BB

((8+6+18)(1-X))-((12)(X))=0

32 -32X -12X = 0

32 -44X = 0

Thus X = 73%

So the initial bet of 6BB is dead money.

I calculate a figure of 0.6PSB, for how much we should bet on each subsequent street, would be consistent with 73% bet frequency calculated this way.

I hope I've not wasted your time on this point Mathew.

The 6bb is dead money.

Yup, sorry about the late response. Good job figuring it out and you'll now remember it/understand stuff way better because you did, though usuually I do try to answer questions quicker.

Best of luck!

On page 147 you state... we're allowed to bluff more combinations of hands for each strong hand we value bet on the flop compared to raising on the flop.

Is not the difference in the examples sited due to the differences in the size of the bet in terms of PSBs? I can understand that, for an identical size in terms of pot size, a bet would be smaller than a raise in terms of BBs and that the bet could be larger for a given initial effective stack size than a raise following a bet. I'm not sure what you mean though and I'd really appreciate more clarification here.

Having written the above post (#1684) I'm now content that the bet can be larger in terms of PSBs and that it follows that for a given effective stack size the percentage of value bets on the flop can therefore be lower.

Sorry to have wasted your time, again, Mathew.

Could you please expand upon how you reach the probabilities 20% and 15% in the example on page 155? It would really help if you could define the range that you expect the big blind would have on the flop, please.

Regarding post #1686

I just realised that the hand chart you give on page 83 is exactly what I was asking for. Having now counted the hands using this chart I can see what you are saying.

I'm now at page 184 and feel I'm learning a great deal. I'm looking forward to reading 'No limit Hold em for Advanced Players, Emphasis on Tough Games.' Which I've already bought.

Greetings Mathew. Pardon me if I seem stuck on some tiny detail but I'm trying to glean the most out of your excellent book.
On page 231 you refer to pre flop play when you say 'Remember, when analyzing preflop play, we saw that the out of position 3-bettor pays on average 6 to 7 big blinds to see a flop with his bluffs,'. I've tried rereading the section referred to and yet I do not follow. Could you please put my mind at rest and explain why the out of position 3 bettor, who I would expect to make a larger bet, would only be risking so little to see the flop?

So im reading the book Applications of NLHE by Matthew Janda. I think it is very insightful and can provide huge profits for a long term poker strategy. I stumbled upon one of the equations and wanted to get some help from you guys understanding how it was solved so, when the time comes to put it into practice with my own numbers and input Ill know what Im doing.

On page 37 he's talking about how often a 5 bet bluff needs to work in order to be profitable. He gives these numbers

Pot:36.5

Blinds: 1.5bb + original raisers open plus his 4bet: 24bb + Our original 3bet: 11bb

He gives this equation to figure out how often he needs to be profitable for the 5bet bluff to work:

(X)(36.5)+(1-X)(-26.5)=0
63X=26.5
X=.42



Im lost here how is this whole equation solved step by step? How did the number .42 come into fruition? What is the 1-x?

The 36.5 is the amount of bb we win on average when our opponent folds to our 5bet bluff. And the -26.5 comes from the average expectation of bb when we 5bet shove and we get called and are a dog.

0.42 is the answer, 42%.

The equation works as 42% of the time we win 36.5, and (1-42%, i.e. 58%) of the time we lose 26.5. In terms of how you get the answer you would be best googling basic equation soliving.

Don't have the book in front of me at the moment, but it's probably referring to the fact that the 3-bet will get your opponent to often fold pre-flop. Since you take down some pots pre-flop, when your 3-bet does it called it's effectively "discounted" by all the times you took down the pot pre-flop.

So for example if button min-raises and you 3-bet to 8.5BB in the SB and your opponents all fold 50% of the time pre-flop, that means 50% of the time you'll win 2BB + 0.5BB + 1BB = 3.5BB pre-flop without taking a flop. So when your 3-bet is called the other 50% of the time, you're really only paying on average 8BB - 3.5BB = 4.5BB to see the flop, since you get to take down the pot pre0flop so often.

Keep in mind when this book was written people defended WAYYYYYYY less to 3-bet than they do now. 3-betting was massively exploitatively +EV back in the day.

hey Matthew, I dont believe you can imagine how Application of NLH is sOOO popular , that every serious poker player should read it. Thanks for your hard work.
There is a small detail I can not understand it. The first paragraph on page 237, the 3 bettor has EV 9BB if he bet the flop with his gutshot, and if cold caller defend by mini raise, 3-bettor EV drop to almost 1BB. How to calculate that ? Thanks

How has this book aged in the solver world?

My understanding is no solvers were commercially available in 2013.

X is the percentage of times the 5-bet bluff needs to be successful to break even (.42=42%). 1-X is the difference between that and 1 (1=100%), or the percent of times you were unsuccessful with your bluff and got called (.58 or 58%). So if you were called less than 58% of the time (your bluff raise worked more than 42%) you will show a long term profit. If you were called more than 58% of the time (your bluff raise worked less than 42%) you will show a long term loss. Or in other words, the break even point is your opponent folding 42% of the time (x), which is the same thing as your opponent calling 58% of the time (1-X).

His second book used solvers to inform many of his examples and advice. There are differences which he mentions in the second book (No Limit Hold'em for Advanced Players).

Hello everybody, I'm from France and I'm pretty new on the 2+2 forum (even if 2+2 is known for years all over the world). I go through this thread since I bought applications of NLHE, to make some light on certain point.

I'm a slow reader. It hurts me to go to a new concept when I don't embrace it perfectly .

So now I can say that I mastering better preflop concepts but I'm stuck to one point:

Page 80 in Recommended Hand Chart, Matthew says: "if we use a smaller open sizing, we should be able to open a bit wider".

Since I believe this is true, I can't get the logic/mathemathic behind that assumption, and it seems to me that all the concepts landed in previous chapters can't help to understand that point.

Does somebody feel okay to try to explain me ? Or even Matthew personnaly ?

Thanks !

One possible explanation is that with a small bet, opponents are more likely to call wider; therefore, you can open wider.

For a mathematical justification, if you make a bet of B into a pot of P, the minimum showdown equity to assure +EV is B/(P+2B) assuming a villain call.

You can easily show that the required equity decreases with B. As required equity decreases, more hands can meet the requirement. Therefore, the smaller the bet, the wider you can bet.

Note, this simple math ignores many factors such as future betting, folds (equity realization), raises, EV maximization, etc. but does support the contention that a smaller bet can justify a wider opening.

In Bet-Sizing Adjustments as the 3-Bettor,at the end of the first paragraph after 2, Weak hands are more profitable in strong ranges than weak ranges, you wrote "But with shallow stack depth this is less effective since our opponent can comfortably 4-bet fold all-in."
Do you mean 4-bet all-in instead of 4-bet fold all-in?

Sorry the above post is about No-Limit Hold'em for Advanced players.