Yeah, I missed that you combined bet and pot into one number for the denominator. Should have noticed min bet of 2 didn't make sense for blinds of 3.5.

No problem.

Hey Matthew apologies if this has been asked before but how did you go about constructing the ranges in the book for pre-flop play?

Most of chapter 2 deals with explaining the general guidelines I used for constructing the ranges.

Application of ideas is often not easy.

Between the cup and the lip there can be many a slip.

Maybe you could make some videos of your actual play for Cardrunners and ask if 2plus2 could put them in their video library. Promotes both sites.

It would be cool to watch several hours of your actual play!

Hello Matt,
How GTO ranges would be calculated to 5bet push?

We use EV+ hands (EV total = EVFold + EVCall) ór we use a polarizaded range and flat mediums hands. Do not know if it would last some sense.

Thanks you.

Is the recommended hand chart under ideal conditions (assuming it is for 100BB effective and 6 handed) close to GTO enough that the preflop strategy won´t be significantly exploited at 10/20 and higher? (obviously assuming GTO play postflop)

Nobody knows what GTO play looks like, neither preflop nor postflop (not that you could separate the two).

If Matthew puts this preflop strategy out there then I assume that it is constructed in such a way that it is not easily exploited.

Check out post 62. I think the pre-flop ranges are "too polarized" and can be improved, but as Cangurino pointed out no one knows what optimal pre-flop ranges are.

I'm a bit confused on what you're asking, but my guess would be that optimal pre-flop ranges involve 3-betting a less polarized range than is listed in the book (see page 62) and for many hands in the 3-betting range to just call against a 4-bet. It's especially hard to say whether or not it's more profitable to flat a 4-bet or 5-bet.

Keep in mind the pre-flop ranges were made several years ago and honestly I expected people to more or less look over them and go "Ahhhh, that makes sense. People probably aren't calling 3-bets nearly as aggressively as is what is likely optimal, most people are 4-betting using too big of sizing, and it of course makes sense once players start 4-betting small for the 3-bettor to consider flatting the 4-bet." Optimal pre-flop ranges would use multiple different bet sizes and have many mixed strategies. I try really hard to always list ranges rather than keep theory abstract, but in retrospect it may have been a bit of a mistake for pre-flop as listing out all the ranges may have made readers think these ranges are closer to optimal than they actually are.

How would your preflop ranges look with something like 2,5x opening size UTG/MP/CO and BTN 2x?

BB would probably cold call significantly wider, but that'd be the main change. All the other positions would probably get a bit more aggressive as well since they're getting a better price, but BB is getting an extremely great price especially when the button min-raises.

hi do you think that is we want a cc range PF we must have a polarized 3betting range?

how this change (if) oop and IP

A bit confused on what you're asking, but I'll take a stab at it:

You will never have a perfectly polarized range, so even if you bet the previous street you'll almost always want to have some sort of check-calling range on the following street. Nevertheless, as your range gets less polarized it becomes more important to defend by check-calling. One of the advantages about using the range posted on page 62 is that it's easier to develop check-calling ranges on the flop, turn, and river since our range is less polarized.

Hope that helps.

I read your "cc" as cold call, and then "polarized" just means that we 3bet some hands that are stronger than our calling range (i.e., for value) and some hands that are weaker than our calling range (i.e., as a bluff).

Of course we do not have to have a bluffing range, for example if we face a bad player who doesn't fold preflop. But I assume that you refer to optimal play (which we do not know precisely, as has been pointed out above).

However, with the caveat that you can't really order preflop hands linearly the answer is probably yes in general, independent of the position.

No. You can 3bet your strongest hands, call with your next best hands and 3bet also with hands not strong enough to call. However, you can also 3bet a linear range, call with next best hands and fold everything else.

What are the average vpip/pfr stats with the recommended ranges? I haven't played many hands sticking to the chart yet, but so far I'm getting 21/16. Not sure if thats ok or too tight.

Hi Matthew, does your book have a section on setmining?

Got the book today, bit marked and it looks like someone has spunked a bit on it, i blame Amazon for that.

Its prob way over my head, but i just enjoy reading poker books. First few pages have already opened my eyes and engaged my brain a bit (A9o vs 89s)

So should we prefer one option over the other depending on whether our opponent flats our 3-bets?

(I.e. use a polarised range if they only 4-bet/fold but a linear range if they sometimes flat.)

Probably really close to that. They're pretty normal ranges and a lot of players I talk to use similar ranges and have those stats.

It does not.

Cool, I'm a big advocate of just keeping poker fun and taking what you can from it and not worrying about what seems confusing. If a chapter gets tough don't worry too much and just try to pay extra attention to the "main points" at the end of the chapter.

Most people I currently talk poker with and myself agree 3-betting and 4-betting ranges should not be completely "linear" (only 3-betting or 4-betting the best hands) nor completely "polarized" (only 3-betting or 4-betting hands that are relatively clear "value bets" or "bluffs"). The problem with using a term like "polarized" or "linear" is that despite the terms being useful if people take them to too far of an extreme you likely end up getting less than ideal ranges (but of course no one knows what is optimal).

You really have to make pre-flop ranges and see how they play post-flop. Theory is useful for getting you on the right track, but it's very hard to tell something like "Oh, this range in general has trouble check-calling on many common board textures" without actually analyzing post-flop play in 3-bet pots.

Sorry for taking so long to fully respond to this (though I already answered board #3).

Are you comfortable with using the formula for bet sizing discussed in Mathematics of Poker as well as in the river chapter of my book? Keep in mind you'll have to guess how often you're "effectively beat," as even if you're beat only 20% of the time you will likely get raised some % of the time.

Basically, I think you'll want to use the formula to get a general idea of how big you should bet, keeping in mind betting in position re-opens up the betting and allows your opponent to raise you so betting very small is likely worse than checking. You also will probably want to make sure you're betting some very strong hands (in addition to your medium strength value bets and bluffs) even in your small betting ranges to prevent your opponent from being able to check-raise super aggressively.

So, if J3o is beat 20% of the time, don't just bet an amount that you would if your opponent could not raise. Keep in mind he will raise sometimes, and if you never bet any hands stronger than J3o with a given sizing then a counter-strategy will exist where your opponent check-raises all 20% of hands that beat you. It's up to you if you think you need to worry about being exploited if your bet sizing makes your range too transparent, but I don't think it's particularly worrisome unless you are playing very, very good opponents.