I'd like you to clarify something for me.

Page 11 you say about EV : Folding at the point of calculation always has an expectation of zero regardless of whether we lose money overall on the hand

Then page 76 about calling a 4bet you're saying: Also, when calling a 4bet, it's important to remember that the call only needs to be profitable relative to folding which results in losing 9.5bb overall for the hand

It seems contradicting to me. Same thing as defending in the BB with 1bb already invested.

Thanks for the help

Another thing I don't understand

On page 114, you use equation: (.8)(x) + (0.2)(1-x) = .389
to calculate how often we can raise with a polarized range that has 80/20% equity with value/bluff hands.

The .389 is related to the % of value hands we have on the flop with the polarized range of 100/0% equity hands, so I don't understand why it's there.

Thanks again

I came to this thread to look for a review, instead i found author's answers for different questions from his readers which convinced me to buy this book.
p.s. I'd appreciate if someone actually gives me link to a review

Usually, players look at all the money already invested into the pot as dead money. This is useful because you can't take back the money you've already invested so it doesn't matter where the money in the pot originally came from. When you do this folding always has an EV of 0.

Other times it's helpful to look at the overall EV for the hand. For example, suppose I 3-bet AhTh in the BB against a button open and get 4-bet. I'm usually quite unhappy to see that 4-bet, but I'll probably call because I think calling has an EV greater than 0 when I take into account the money I've already invested into the pot is dead money. To visualize this it helps me to think to myself "Well, if I fold now after already 3-betting to 9.5BB, I'm going to lose overall 9.5BB for the hand. But if I call, even though I expect to lose money overall for the hand, maybe I'll only lose 6-7BB on average."

So folding is always 0 EV when you look at the money invested as dead money. But it also helps to look at your overall EV for the hand in certain spots, especially when you're making calls you don't really want to make. It's just a different way to visualize a situation.

This is explained in much more detail in the book than I'm going to be able to explain here. If you understand the perfectly polarized range example (raising 100% equity value hands and 0% equity bluffs), then this isn't much different. Again it's explained in much more detail in the book, but if I had to sum it up quickly I'd say "While this is a model and will not give perfect results, if we assume our bluff raises have 20% equity and our value raises have only 80% equity then overall our flop raising range will have more equity than it would if we raised a perfectly polarized range (provided we're raising more bluffs than value hands on the flop, which we should be). This may allow us to bluff even more aggressively than we could if we had a perfectly polarized range, especially when in position where we'll have an easier time realizing our equity."

There are reviews scattered throughout this thread. You can also search "Janda" into TwoPlusTwo and see what people are saying in different threads, though you'll get a bit of noise since people also talk about my CardRunners videos too. Google searching is also an option but again they'll be a bit of noise.

Thanks for your answers, I now understand all that. The only thing I'm not sure about is the fact that you plug the value we get from the 100/0 example into this to get an answer for 80/20. I guess I'll have to think about it a bit more to understand why it's okay to do it this way.

There are actually two formulas underlying that calculation. And the second one uses the outcome of the first. But it is used in a different way. The two calculations are not the same.

Is there a place us ebook readers can look for the footnotes? The numbers show on screen but there is no reference page

Just began reading this book. High expectations but also a little bit 'scared' this book helps a lot of players so big that it will be very difficult to win at the mid+ stakes.

But one question. How you guys read this book? I'm at the Examining complex ranges chapter and saw a lot of math already so far. Should I write those formulas on paper and try some stuff out or is this just an introduction chapter where reading is just enough?

I'm from the Netherlands so I'll do my best to make myself clear for you and understand everything what has been written in the book.


Btw, is this a more intermediate course of game theory applied on poker? Or shall I continue reading? Read some books like MoP but never actually applied (not intentional) game theory on poker.

Page 236 at the bottom, you're saying that when we raise our opponent bet in a 3bet to 25bb after he bets 12.5bb into a 25bb pot, he will have the odds to call with a gutshot.

When you do the math, he will hit 8.5% of the time on the turn with a gutshot. 12.5/75 = 16.7% are the odds we give him. He then cannot call with hands like 64s, JT or T9, since we will betting the turn often denying him a free river.

I'd like your explanations on this.

Thanks

WOW this is a lot of stuff. that first example on pg 137 was somewhat eye opening and I dont apply anything like to my game so Im going to start trying this out. Im getting killed using this in mtt's.

It seems like Im going to be playing a bunch of more hands that I didnt before. I got to get some numbers together and see if I can make heads or tails cause the math is killing me. Im amazed everyone is finding all these errors.

I just have trouble wrapping my head around of I need 2 bluff value bets for every 1 value bet so I hope some of these folks are gonna be folding or Im gonna be losing

That ok, I dont know if this will work at my live 1/2 cause the bluffs are very few. But im gonna start playing an hour or two 6 max and then put in some serious study, Im just having trouble looking at old hands I played even where to start with some of these formulas but .......

Wish me luck of my new unexploitable play and THIS STUFF HAS GOT ME HYPED UP, just feel Im going to play a ton more hands than I had been. I just dont see many examples when i should be folding im either made or air and throwing in some middle hands in here and hope

The books says "if we raise to only 25 big blinds (the minimum) he may be able to profitably call with some or all of his gutshots." So I'm by no means saying some or all of his gutshots need to be +EV calls.

That said, he can easily turn a pair which can win at showdown or maybe make a +EV check-call, improve to a better draw, or the turn can just check through and he may be able to make a +EV bet with ATC. So we're not able to just look at his immediate odds and determine either way from that information alone.

Glad you're pumped, but realize the limitation of what we're doing and don't think theory like this is more or less useful than it is. I would recommend you start applying new concepts slowly and don't jump in the deep in right away, since if you try to change too many things in your game at once (especially when everything is new to you) things may fall apart.

I really like the book, but I wish it had a greater variety of sample hands at the end. It would've been nice if there were some examples of 3bet+ pot situations or if it discussed ranges on the turn and river in cases other than where the preflop raiser cbets and gets called. I assume the reason why the sample hands are all single raised pots with the turn and river only discussed for cases where the previous street was cbet and called, because these situations have the widest ranges and are therefore most difficult to analyse (and obviously I appreciate it'd take many more pages to discuss every single point of the game tree!). I understand the same concepts apply to other situations, but it's quite hard to get to grips with when you're starting out with this stuff.

For instance, in sample hand no.1, on Ad7s5d UTG is check/calling AA (3), AQ (12), AJ (12), ATs (3), KK-QQ (12), JdJx (3), KdQd KdJd KdTd (total 48 combos). I'm having trouble working out what UTG should be doing on the Ks turn card. This range seems pretty nutted on this board, but quite vulnerable to draws. UTG can certainly defend their checks aggressively, but do they even want to risk letting CO check behind? Should UTG have a leading range here?

Any advice would be much appreciated. I'm making it my goal to work through all the sample hands at the moment, and really try to make sense of the theory. It's quite challenging at times, but I'm really enjoying it.

I'm having a hard time understanding what you're asking on the turn since I'm not sure what the flop action was. Are you assuming UTG bet and MP called? Or that UTG check-called?

I also want to point out that when you're dealing with strong ranges (such as UTG vs MP or in 3-bet pots) you're going to very often have mixed strategies. So, with that UTG check-calling range, if it looks too strong then maybe we should have bet a few AQ combos on the flop (intending to check-call with them on a later street). It can obviously get quite messy if you try to write out mixed strategies when writing out hand combinations, as our goal is usually to just get a better sense on how to play a specific board texture than worry about getting very very close to GTO (which isn't realistically possible with this method, or any method that I know of).

Hi,

I'm halfway through the book, amazing so far.
Are there any further updates on the suggested hand ranges other than the post #62 with the non-polarized 3betting ranges for blinds vs button ?

Thanks,

Nite.

Hey,

Glad you like the book. Some of my favorite sections are in the second half of the book so hopefully you'll continue to enjoy reading it.

Unfortunately, I don't really have any significant updates to post (other than the many responses I've made regarding pre-flop play earlier in this thread). I may eventually write an article for TwoPlusTwo which discusses some of the problems with using too polarized of a check-raising**, but I really only want to do that if I feel like I can write a clear and concise article that a lot of people will enjoy reading. I'm not sure if I can do that yet, and I don't want to discuss more abstract concepts which are pretty difficult to implement unless I really think others will benefit from it.


**Basically, if we check-raise with too polarized of a range post-flop it prevents us from being able to check-raise as aggressively as we would otherwise be able to with a less polarized range. This allows our opponent to realize his equity a bit too cheaply. Less polarized check-raising ranges also allow us to do more creative stuff on later streets and have an easier time check-calling.

I loved the book. This may be a tough question to answer, but how far do you think it is correct to diverge from the strategies discussed when playing against the typical live 1/2 player (quite passive, calls too often)? Are there any exploits that you think should be taken in that game which are non-obvious i.e. other than value betting?

Glad you liked the book, but unfortunately I have almost no live experience. So it'd be really hard for me to suggest anything other than super obvious adjustments which I'm sure you already know.

If you can give me specific reads or tendencies of players you play with I can probably help.

I'd definitely tighten up around the steal situations, 99% of the time you won't be getting 3-bet anywhere near as wide as the book and the updated concept blind 3-bet range advises. Pre-Flop play is loose and passive for the most part as you already know. It is my understanding that if you defend a blind 3-bet with the range that is in the book you will still win, but I would generally tighten up, so for instance maybe you call a 3-bet with a range you open in mp or co, etc....and apply this for all the various pre-flop situations you face. Matt has a multi-way section with some concepts, and in a live game people will be playing with too weak ranges in mw pots, so keep that in mind. People are also raising post flop a lot tighter than an optimal opponent so maybe lower your defense frequencies a bit.

-gl

Matthew,

I would like to congratulate you on this book.

Here is my summary of this book.

Pros
- best information on the market in regards to GTO
- this is a great book to design defending ranges so your opponent can't bet atc
- the river section on card removal was very informative and helpful
- the section about checking back hands to keep in dominated hands was great

Cons
- there are lots of typos in this book. There are hands in both calling/raising ranges etc (I don't mean on purpose either)
- As much as I loved the defence side of the book, the attack side is lacking IMO.
When we raise preflop we are cbet ting just 30-40%. I understand we need to defend our checking range but if we only bet one set and check the other two we have few strong hands if we are check raised. I would rather lose a lot of small pots by check folding on the flop then having to bet fold.
- there are a lot of contradictions in this book. For example the new updated BB 3 bet range.
If the flop comes high cards and we are 3 betting this range we never have any strong hands on the flop when we just call. Like K high flop we have no AK-KT so if I am on the button I would just overbet relentlessly. But in some parts of the book we are aware of this problem and just flat with aces on the button against the CO.
- the hands examples at the back are very limited. It would have been nice to see some 3 bet pots etc
- the book says we should flat 4 bets in position but there's very little info on how to do this effectively.

Sorry if I am hard to understand English is my second language.

On page 396 you say that this is never theoretically correct to take a line with a lower EV for balancing purposes (with a single hand).

In the book, you often say we need to avoid having a capped range in different spots, like when playing deep for example. But this will not maximize the EV of our nut hands, so I find this contradicting.

If our overall range (meaning we lose value with our nut hands but gain value with our medium strength hands) gets the same EV, is it correct to say it's theoretically correct?

Any help on this would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks again

I think against weak opponents opening too wide in the Cutoff, button, and small blind is probably a good idea. You also don't need to defend as aggressively as you need to in theory against 3-bets.

You also can probably call pre-flop with more speculative hands that will play well multiway.

I would still continue to be quite aggressive yourself pre-flop and on the flop.

Thank you for your congratulations and review, and I'm glad you enjoyed the book.

I just want to point out that there are no contradictions in the updated 3-betting range. You need to always take the most +EV line, and it's likely (it's not solvable) most +EV to 3-bet against a button open with KJ+ since the button calls with many dominated hands and folds many high equity hands pre-flop.

Even if our range on the flop is capped at KT or K9 (and it rarely would be, we'll usually if not always have some sets or two pairs), the button is still very restricted on how frequently he can overbet. He simply won't have KT+ all that often, and if he starts overbetting all his KT+ that will result in him having problems with his other betting ranges.

Of course we don't know what's GTO, but if something is a contradiction that's a pretty big deal (means we know something has to be wrong) and that's not the case here.