thanks again)
always thought 65s is better too
hmm K6s have like 5% more straight equity than 65s against standart distributed 3bet range (and same 5% against your 3bet range for example) so actually with slowplay AA and K9s-K5s instead of all sc's i have ~50.50% against any reasonable 3bet range, cool. But it's really really hard to realize this equity isn't it?
obviously we also blocking Kx hands which is always good (we can bluff raise more profitable boards like 6QX 6AX with 1 of our suit and some more cause there's less qk, ak etc), and often we will have kinda lockdown boards against all pp's like K36, K88, KQ7, but

we hit the board 2% more often with K6s and that's mostly because of tp hands, which almost NEVER can stand for more then 1 barrel
i don't see how i can flat with K6s readless, because after every flop, which we need to call, situation will be like "please dont bet please"
the point is - we already have hands in your range which will call 1 barrel then fold (weak broadway etc), but we dont really have enough hands which can call 2-3 barrels then raise for example. or am i wrong maybe?

Liking this book a lot. Only read 200 pages but so far A+.

I have a general question.. During the last few years a topic that has been debated a lot is the red line and players have been aggressively trying to keep it as positive as possible. This has often leas to some rather aggressive lines like stealing from the bt at 60%+, cbetting at very high frequencies etc. Given some of the lines in the book that partly deviate from such a stretegy could one assume that a GTO style in fact has a negative red line? Or are other areas that the book suggest like defending the blinds more, defending vs flop bets more etc going to balance this out?

I've paid very little attention to red line stuff, but I've actually heard a high CB frequency leads to a lower red line.

Also, if everyone were playing GTO then everyone would in the long run have the same red line. How much red line money a GTO style would win against non-GTO opponent's will depend on the opponent.

Correct.

So just check to make sure there's no contradiction in your thought process. If you are folding 50%+ to a pot size CB, you think your opponent can profitably bet any two cards. Make sure you're ok with that if you're folding that much.

It sounds like you are mistaking *wanting* to face a bet or raise with being able to call a bet or raise.

Honestly, it's not often I actually *want* to get action by facing a raise. A good example would be when I open the button and get 3-bet. There really aren't that many hands where I'm hoping I face a 3-bet. But I'm still going to call with lots of AXs/KXs/suited connectors/pocket pairs etc, even though I'd much rather have just taken down the pot or faced a call from my opponent than a 3-bet.

Playing in 3-bet pots uses the same concept. If open the button and call a 3-bet with KXs, no way am I folding a pair of kings on most boards to the double barrel. Would I rather my opponent have checked? Of course. But I still think it's +EV to call rather than fold.

There is a huge bias for favoring 65s over K6s because 65s makes you go "ughhhhhhh" less than K6s. You can feel good about folding 65s usually. But basically here are the differences.

Advantages of K6

#1) K6 flops better flush draws.
#2) K6 flops better pairs of sixes.
#3) Pairs of kings are (significantly) better than pairs of 5's.

Advantages of 65

#1) 65 can make straights.

There are maybe a few more you can think of, but the remaining reasons I think are pretty small. So now you have to ask yourself "Is the ability of 65 to make straights enough to overcome the advantages of K6." Meh. I'm not sure. It's probably pretty close, and I wouldn't be surprised if some ranges need both KXs and suited connectors in them. But I do feel it's unlikely 65 >>> K6 like most people think it is, and I wouldn't even be surprised if in reality in most spots it's K6>6 5.

Thanks.

Matt, thanks again for answering my last question. I tried to do some searching around so I wouldn't have to ask this question, but could not find an answer in this thread using the search option.

I've seen mentioned in some of your CR videos and I know the subject of defending the blinds is ever changing. I did find the chart on pg 82-83 but since the 3-bet ranges changed figured this may have as well.

Is there any cold calling range in the BB? I am pretty sure I read something from you posted somewhere else stating no cold calling range in the SB, but was unsure about the BB.

Versus a player who is min-raising the button, how much wider should we be defending?

I was also wondering what kind of frequency we should be 3-betting against CO.

Will this book be translated into russian? When?

Hey ten25:
Not sure I understand what you're referring to when you state "since the 3Bet ranges changed". Do you mean changed from the videos or from the figures published in the book? What's the issue with the charts on pg 82-83, since they're just guidelines anyway? I apologize if I missed something ....

But in any case, I prefer to combine the 3Bet and Cold-Calling ranges into 1 defending range (i.e. treat vs Open Raise the same as vs 3Bet). For example, based on info in charts on p. 83, 84 I'd have BN v COATS (DFND%, CC%, 3Bet%) of 21.4, 14.2, 7.2; SB v COATS 13.6, 5.6, 8.0; and BB v COATS 18.4, 9.8, 8.6. This allows for more flexibility.

Looks better in a chart ....

If BN is min-open raising, then blinds should defend 1 - (2.0/3.5) ~ 42.9%.

Hi Matthew: re:

"There are maybe a few more you can think of, but the remaining reasons I think are pretty small. So now you have to ask yourself "Is the ability of 65 to make straights enough to overcome the advantages of K6." Meh. I'm not sure. It's probably pretty close, and I wouldn't be surprised if some ranges need both KXs and suited connectors in them. But I do feel it's unlikely 65 >>> K6 like most people think it is, and I wouldn't even be surprised if in reality in most spots it's K6>6 5."

I just wrote a couple quicky EV stats to find out "in reality" which BB hand had the higher EV when calling a BB 3Bet. Unfortunately, I only found 10 K6s – K2s hands in a 300k DB – not nearly enough hands to qualify as a reasonable sample size.

Looks like you might have to wait awhile for enough brave souls to call a 3Bet in this situation - or find a very large DB - in order to get enough data to answer your question.

Oops - my bad.

I only found 1 (not 10) qualifying K6s - K2s hands in a 300k DB. I'll post a screenshot of the EV Report and stats I used as soon as I'm allowed ....

Matthew, fantastic book

In conclusion (point 3), you say that "few players are currently bluff raising aggressively enough when in position." However, it seems that with many of the ranges you analyse when defending in position, the portion of the range that you use to raise is often small or even non existent.

Just wondering how wide a flop raising range we can get away with....

Glad to hear you like the book.

What I mean is the ratio of value bets: bluffs is usually skewed. A lot of people just don't understand how aggressively you can bluff on the flop relative to the river.

There are some spots where I think no raising range is fine on the flop, but if you do raise your range should usually consist of mostly bluffs (of course there are a lot of details to this but hopefully you're already comfortable with them after having read the book).

Coincidentally, I just was playing with a poker variance generator yesterday while talking with a friend about how high variance HU poker is.

You would need a massive sample to see if K6s or 65s is more profitable I think. Since HU players call both K6s and 65s to a 3-bet maybe you could look there, but realistically I don't think you'll be able to prove which one is better just from looking at a database. Still I'd be interested to see though if you do decide to do this.

I call a lot in the BB, especially against a button open. You get a really good price, close the action, and won't be OOP multiway very often. Also, even if your calling range is "condensed" (includes no very strong hands), it won't be after you see a flop as you'll flop some two pair/sets/etc.

Matt. A major assumption throughout the book is that we should prevent villain from profitably betting any two cards.
Now lets say we actually defend a little tighter than optimal. Villain can now bet any two cards profitably on the flop. But because our turn range is stronger, he has to check/fold more often and can't valuebet as thinly on the turn.
How do we know that this has lower EV than defending optimally, ie preventing villain from a profitable bet with atc?

This is an assumption that's used at times and there are also times where I explicitly say I think a player should be able to profitably bet any two cards. I know you know this but people tend to take things out of context and I don't want anyone thinking I assume a player should never be able to profitably bet any two cards.


Do you agree this is more or less just asking "When facing a bet is it better to defend with a tight range so our opponent's EV is lower if we call him, or is it better to defend with a wide range so his EV is higher once we call him but he'll be called more often?" If you agree, I imagine you'll be able to quickly see how this is an extremely vague question that will depend on a ton of variables (stack depth, ranges, etc).

Also, you used the phrase "how do we know this is lower than defending optimally?" By definition optimal poker maximizes EV against an optimal opponent.

I think your last line is wrong. I think it should be 1 - (2.0/(2.0+3.5)) ~ 63.4%.

Hi AceHigh:

Maybe I should have written the equation as 1 - 2/(2.0 + 1.5).

Math Check: Blinds Fold 57.1% Dfnd 42.9%
Bld Dfnd to prevent BN from raising any 2 cards.

Looking at it from point of view of EV = BN Profit or loss from decision point
.43*-2.0 = -86.0
.57*1.5 = 86.0

Looking at it from point of view of EWin = BN bb won or lost on hand overall
Amount put in per hand = -2.0
Amount won .57*3.5 = 2.0

Matthew:
Something about B3lly’s question and your response kept nagging at me, and I finally figured out why. Since this isn’t listed on page 1 of the forum …

Throughout your book and in your responses in the forums you have painstakingly taken care to use the term “optimal” exclusively in the context of GTO strategy.

Part II, Preflop play, began with the idea that since it’s impossible to design optimal preflop defending ranges … let’s start by determining how to exploit the basic ranges that most winning players currently use … and then modify them as we see how they can be exploited …

After approx. 45 pages of discussion and introducing new methodologies to analyze complex ranges consistent with these concepts (ending with 6 pages of Recommended Hand Charts), point #1 of the Part II summary begins “When designing optimal preflop defending ranges, our main goal is to prevent the PF raiser …” (p.87).

Really? GTO 6-max Preflop defending ranges and Recommended Hand Charts?

Did you mean “When designing effective 6-max preflop defending ranges …”?

I never meant to imply it's possible to design optimal pre-flop ranges and I think that's always been pretty clear. I don't have the book in front of me at the moment, but when looking at just that sentence alone then I agree changing "optimal" to "effective" is better.

Hi again;

Just reviewed your post #61.

IMO, it would be very useful if page 1 of the forum was also updated to say: "For all you dummies who don't know any better, check out post #61 before you editorialize on PF play".

However, in my defense, I think its extremely important that the point be made somewhere on pg 1, because, obviously, a lot of players are still very confused by the distinction between a GTO strategy and an effective (exploitative) one.

Thanks

Matt - we got crossed up a bit - you posted while I was framing response.

I agree, I think you've gone way, way out of your way to make the point clear. That was kinda my point.

Despite your best efforts, obviously, as evidenced by a lot of the questions asked in this forum, a lot of players believe that it is possible to design GTO pre-flop, flop, turn, and river ranges - and that's what your book is all about.

What I'm suggesting is that maybe clarifying the issue on pg 1 might save these players and yourself a lot of time and effort ....

It's not dummies that get this mixed up though. The idea that pre-flop 3-betting (and especially 4-betting ranges) should be very polarized has been around for a long time and most players at some point in their poker career used very polarized ranges. I'm sure others have thought of it independently, but honestly it wasn't until Sauce started talking about "linear ranges" that I heard of players going a non-polarized route.

I'll think about what you said a bit and see if we should make a clarification on page 1.

Thanks.

By dummies, I was referring to me not checking out your post before sounding off - didn't mean to imply otherwise.