English is not my native language, so I maybe wrong, but I think that "type-o" can not be used as short form for "typographical error". Why do you write this way instead of "typo"?

Slipped my mind at the moment how to spell it and just didn't care enough to look it up. I'll keep that in mind for the future though.

What level of math is needed to excel in GTO poker?

Obv this is a very fine book. Glad I bought it.

I notice you posted your play results on your blog, as you had promised to do:

http://www.cardrunners.com/blog/Matthew%20Janda

Thank you for for hosting this thread on your book.

Super-cool.

Matthew, looking forward to receiving your book.

Just wanted to know if you could provide some feedback on bugs article based on your videos.

Things you think he got wrong etc.

I notice you mentioned that we should be calling 3bets oop and calling 4bets in position so am really looking forward to reading your reasoning and hand examples for this.

I have ordered your book and look forward to reading it.

I will post a little review as soon as it arrives and I read a few chapters.

Honestly, I think it's best if you just wait and read the book. It's also hard to say he got stuff "wrong" when he was just using an oversimplified model at a time when people were much worse at poker theory and had access to weaker software.

Maybe I didn't understand what you replied to Lego05. Because there is still one sentence p.46 that is confusing to me.
I can't figure out who's who:

"Against these players, we need to defend at least 15.2% of their total opening range or else bluffing with hands like ace-rag suited and pocket pairs becomes profitable for them."

What I got from p.45 and your answer itt is that if we're playing a 4b or fold strategy OOP vs 3bets, we'll have to call a 5b with 15.2% of our opening range on average. That's fine.

Just read the Preflop Play part.

<1% of MSNL+ is using 3.5x ing from UTG, MP and CO, and it's like that for more then a year.


p46: 5-Bet-Call is actually 4-Bet-Call, or Call-5bet, no? 5-Bet-Call seems to suggest we 5bet then call a shove.


p61: SB 3bet 16% and cold calls 8%, BB 3bets 14% and cold calls 20% are suggested as reasonable defense ranges vs a BTN 2.5x open.

With these ranges both are doing about 50% of the defense (varies a tiny bit on how you weight SB coldcall compared to BB cold calls) while it seems way more likely to me (and ranges from HS regs seem to confirm this) that SB does like 45% of the defense and BB like 55%.


p63 "Calling preflop with hands like Kc9c ... is probably best"
Only if you assume we should be 3betting polarized OOP, there isnt a consensus about this, and no discussion/arguments about this in the book. If it turns out 3betting depolarized OOP is better, then K9s is probably a 3bet


p70 "This means he will get on average 3 big blinds back from the 18 big blind pot"
19.5 big blind pot?
Also isnt only 3 big blinds a really really low estimate?

On these pages again a polarized 3betting range seems to be assumed without justification. What if we should call enough 3bets to make BB indifferent between 3betting and cold calling hands like K9s instead of making hands like 53s indifferent to 3b bluffing and folding?


p71 "X is the button's folding frequency" calling frequency?


p85 BB 3bet vs SB chart is missing?

Yes, when I wrote this I was playing NL$200 zoom and those were commonly used sizings since people were still using the "bet the pot" button. It also has the advantage of seeming somewhat reasonable for live and online play. If I could make the range again I'd pick a 2.5x open, but using 3.5 doesn't change the math much and I luckily did pick 2.5 for the button open.

AHhhh, so that's why Lego was confused. You're of course right, it's the range that calls the 5-bet after 4-betting. "Call-5bet" might have been clearer.

This is just used an example for trying to design ranges where there's nothing clearly wrong with them. In the hand chart I'm 3-betting 18.1% in SB vs button and 17.5% in BB vs button (and calling much more from BB than SB), which is probably closer to your SB 45% and BB 55%. But even then of course these ranges aren't correct, this was just my best guess at the time they were made using the methodology previously shown.


I don't like the term "polarized" for 3-betting OOP vs a button open anymore, and that probably deserves it's own article. I'll write a long post about it in a second.

I think it's a SUPER low estimate. But when I started writing this (2 years ago), most advice among SSNL and even MSNL was super nitty 3-bet calling ranges. Like really, really nitty (I remember a HSNL friend telling me to fold ATo vs an unknowns 3-bet). So I intentionally chose a very generous estimate to show how aggressively you need to defend against 3-bets even if you give very little EV to the opponent's bluffs post-flop.

Will address is next post.

You're right that's an error, should be calling frequency.

Addressed in following long post.

Non-Polarized Blind Vs Button Defending Ranges

So recently there's been a lot of talk about using non-polarized ranges in button vs big blind situations. Let's briefly go over the problems with using a "polarized" range.

#1) Well, firstly if we're going to be 3-betting aggressively, it's impossible to really get our range that polarized. It's not like it's an UTG open where we're 3-betting with some super clear value bets (QQ+/AKs) and air. A lot of the hands we'll be 3-betting "for value" (the term works poorly here) are hands like AT, KJ, and TT, and these hands are going to be outdrawn all the time even if they're ahead pre-flop. Tons of our opponent's hands will have over 40%+ equity against these hands and the advantage of position.

#2) Because of that, in button vs blind situations our range won't be particularly polarized on the flop no matter how hard we try. We just can't 3-bet aggressively enough vs button opens while keeping our range very polarized. Again, this isn't like a flop situation where we can raise sets/two pair/draws and air and make a range very easy to play on the turn and river (and even then we could add a few non-polarized hands to this flop raising range, but I'll save that for another time).

#3) If our range was perfectly polarized on the flop, we would not need to worry about check-calling or check-raising. We'd always either bet or check-fold and our hand would play perfectly like in the model described in Part Four which focuses on flop play. But since our range can't play like this, we need hands that can check-raise and check-call on the flop since we'll clearly need to be (often) defending our checks.

I'll start with listing the ranges I'm using right now. Again, these are just the ranges I'm playing with right now, these aren't GTO ranges, and in all likelihood I'll have at least slightly different ranges a year from now. They're even labeled "experimental ranges" in my flopzilla because I need more time to play with them post-flop to see if I need to tighten or widen the ranges.

Here's the SB 3-betting range (I'm not currently flatting anything from the SB, again deserves it's own article for why I'm doing this and in theory I imagine SB uses a very small flatting range. But it's not solvable and I could easily be wrong):



And here's the BB 3-betting range:



Let me stress one more time these aren't GTO ranges. I haven't even touched upon my calling range from the BB or what opening size I'm assuming the button opens. But what's more important is you see how and why these ranges are different from the ones in the book.

#1) There is a *MUCH* greater emphasis on using high equity hands rather than hands with more robust equity. For example, look at the small blind 3-betting range. I'm currently 3-betting Q9s but folding 65s. That's because Q9s has more equity and will play better as a check-call on certain flop textures, and this allows me to balance my post-flop ranges. So, even if 65s make a few more nut type hands (since it makes more straights), I still think Q9s is better.

#2) Since we're 3-betting hands which will more consistently flop marginal hands (medium pair or top pair with a weak kicker), we must be prepared to play hands that are much harder to play post-flop. Especially at SSNL (but even at other stakes), people tend to love bet-folding and hate check-calling. A lot of these hands will be very difficult to play since they'll often go into "bluff catching" check-calling range post-flop (either on the flop, turn, or river) and your opponent will get to play the polarized range in position.

#3) Since we're 3-betting more of the high equity good stuff, our calling range from the big blind will be very weak. Remember, a lot of times players min-raise or 2.5x raise in the button, so we'll never fold any hand in the big blind that can lose less than 1 big blind overall by calling. We're thus often getting an amazing price to call and should call with very weak hands.

This forces us to play a range that's very weak and out of position with a lot of stack depth. That's hard, and will result in us check-folding a lot post-flop. More specifically, there are a lot of hands that are probably -1 BB overall to fold pre-flop from the big blind (since we just fold our blind) that are in theory let's guess only -0.85 BB if we call. But these hands are very hard for most players to play, as we're not GTO robots and most of us tend to make more mistakes with a weak range OOP than a good range in position.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So as LorenzoVMatterhorn pointed out, there is no consensus as to whether calling or 3-betting K9s pre-flop is best and he's right. So let's look at the pros and cons of each 3-betting and flatting K9s from the big blind:

Pros of 3-betting:
#1) Our opponent doesn't get to see a free flop with his weak opening hands. This is hugely important, since even the weakest hands in the button opening range our going to outdraw our K9s (or make us fold the better hand) nonstop.

#2) K9s probably will work pretty well as a check-call on some king high boards, or it can bet the flop then check-call the turn. In other words, it's a hand that can usually get a few streets of value post-flop and won't often greatly fear giving free cards (since there are few overcards to a pair of kings, so our opponent's bluffs won't often have a ton of equity). Additionally, we may need more check-calling hands in our post-flop range on certain board textures and this hand will help.

Cons of 3-betting:
#1) We may get 4-bet and have to fold a pretty good hand (or make a loose call).

#2) We may be mostly making our opponent's dominated hands fold while the hands that dominate us call. For example, maybe our optimal-ish opponent calls A9o, KQo, KJo, KTo, and K9s pre-flop, but he folds most suited kings worse than K9s and all offsuit kings worse than KTo.


While I'm sure you can think of some more detailed pros and cons to each 3-betting and flatting, you can already get an "ewwwwwww" feeling when someone asks "Is K9s a 3-bet in the big blind vs a button open in theory?" There's a ton of pros and cons to each 3-betting and flatting, and this won't model well.

Yet if I had to guess right now, I think it's not a 3-bet since I think our opponent is going to call with most hands which dominate us and fold most hands which we dominate. I dislike making the pot bigger when I'm behind and while it's fine if we make our opponent fold Q9o/J9o/K4s pre-flop, that's not ideal. These hands don't have much equity against and we can win a medium sized pot when we have them outkicked.

Contrast this briefly with a hand which like 76s, which I think is a clearer 3-bet since this hand retains it's equity well because it makes hands which dominate it (like A7/K7/Q7 and A6/K6/Q6) fold and it has the potential to make very robust hands (straights and flushes) and win a massive pot. So I think this one is pretty easy and people won't disagree with it.

So if I had to guess right now, in the case I find I can widen my BB 3-betting range I think I'd rather 3-bet something like K2s vs the button open rather than K9s. That's because I think the 3-bet happens to make a lot of hands which K9s dominates fold. Put differently, the 9 high kicker is more valuable in a raised pot than a 3-bet pot (since in raised pots we'll outkick our opponents K8o etc), and the difference between a pair of 9's and pair of 2's is more significant in a raised pot than 3-bet pot (since your opponent will have more pairs of 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, and 3 in raised pots than 3-bet pots). So I'd rather 3-bet K2s to make hands which dominate it fold and call with K9s to keep hands which dominate it involved.

Ultimately, is that worth having to play a 3-bet pot with a slightly weaker hand? I think it is, but there's no way to prove it and I could easily be wrong. That's also why I don't like the term "polarized" or "linear" much for pre-flop play, because I've seen the terms mean different things to different people and pre-flop is just such an incredibly complicated and unsolvable problem.

EDIT: I intentionally ignored BvB ranges because I think they're even more complicated, didn't understand them well enough when writing the book (and still might not), and the concepts behind them would likely be too complicated to explain that early on in the book.

My question has to do with the applicability of this book to the live 1-2 NL games as they are played today on the East Coast. I'm a moderately successful player at the Borgata, generally 1-2, and very occasionally 2-5. My style is generally TAG, but I'm positionally aware and very capable of picking up orphan pots. I've read most of the other major works that relate to live play, Sklansky, Harrington, Miller etc, but would like to evolve to the next lever of play. Even taken a number of coaching lesions with Bill Hubburd (ANL) who by the way I heartily recommend.

Following the posts in this thread I see a lot of material that relates to online and most certainly not B&M games. Examples : 4 and 5 preflop betting. At the Borgata a 4 or 5 bet means means one of three things: AA, KK or an short stack who wants to go home and the line at the cage is long.

Blind vrs blind doesn't exist because that is almost always chopped. Even the button vrs the blinds - unless the button has a really decent hand, he usually says " I'll let you guys chop"

The examples seem to be taken exclusively from online and usually 6 max.

Now taking on this book is a significant commitment of time and energy, and it seems that a casual one time browse through would not accomplish much. So would it be worth it in my case to tackle this book and commit the time, energy and effort this volume requires and deserves?

I know I'm going to get responses that "poker is poker" yada yada. But I totally believe that's crap. Comparing online 6 max using Pokertracker and HEM to live B&M play is the same as comparing a teapot to a testicle. I say this based on being a long term online loser and a long term B&M winner, so I've had extensive experience in both.

So, in a nutshell, should I get the book?

My guess is this is that unless you think you would enjoy reading it and improving your understanding of the game, this is not the book for you. That's not to say it won't benefit live players (and you may want to wait on feedback from other live players who read the book), it just will be a pretty big time commitment and if you don't think you'd enjoy it then I'd just pass for now and wait for more feedback.

It doesn't matter whether K9s or 65s is better, it matters if K9s is more profitable to 3-bet or flat and if 65s is more profitable to 3-bet or flat (since we must always take the most +EV line). None of this stuff is solvable and it's very hard to tell, but I think 65s is better to 3-bet than flat because it makes many hands which dominate it fold (such as A6/K6/A5/Q5) and has the potential to make very strong hands. I think K9s is really close but if I had to guess I think flatting has a greater EV (and that's mainly because I think we make many dominated KX and 9X hands fold to our 3-bet, whereas most hands which dominate us call).

In the small blind vs button case, since I'm not flatting any hands in the small blind against a button open I just want to 3-bet with the hands that I think have the highest EV in a 3-bet pot. Despite 65s being much easier to play, I think Q9s has a higher EV than 65s because it has more equity. That's why I chose to (in my experimental ranges) fold 65s in the small blind to a button open but 3-bet Q9s. If I find these 3-betting ranges are too strong and I can add more weak hands, I'll probably start 3-betting 65s as well. It's completely non-solvable.

Additionally, it's important to note most people are currently opening the button too aggressively and folding too much to 3-bets. So in the small blind you likely can 3-bet any suited ace, king, queen, and any of the suited connectors or gappers and make a profit against many opponents (at least until they adjust). So don't think just because 75s may not be a 3-bet in theory from the small blind against a button open that it won't be in practice at most stakes, as anyone who has 3-bet those hands probably is up a lot of money doing it because they are playing against far from optimal opponents.

Yeah thx that makes perfect sense now.

Can I just say thanks for replying to ppl responses.

And also can ppl stop commenting on the 3.5x open size.

It's been mentioned before in the discussion thread and earlier in this thread.

If you are really pedantic you can make the modifications yourself.

im mainly a tournament player. is this book mainly focused on cash or can the same concepts be applied to tournament poker as well?

I havent read the book (yet)

But I dont see why not. I play mostly MTT online.

Although many tour players belive in "spots" rather than having a balanced overall strategy.

And yes tours are often more a kinda feel oriented game because often we will not play the same oponents ever again. So we can somtimes disregard balance in favor of playing the player sortoff.

But its important ot have a balanced aproach vs other regulars in the MTT you frequently play.

It is important to have and overall strategy where the hands you play from preflop to river have some sort of cordination between them, so you end up with the correct range on each street (Not sure if this is the right word, Im not English). So you are not just pressing random buttons.

Also i think that reading a book like this will make you sortof more aware of when you oponents are unbalanced and you could take advantage of it. When you know what to look for.

On page 105: Why do we make our flop raise 16-18 and then bet turn and river equal percentage of the pot?

Why not make our flop raise, turn bet, and river bet all equal percentages of the pot?

Edit: Not sure if that is worded right since the sizing buttons give the % of the pot after the raiser has matched the bet - I mean the size that makes the opponent have to defend the same amount on each street maximizing our EV with a polarized range.

With Matthew's knowledge and insight, it must be so -EV to not have moved country to play.

I guess life wins.

Almost all the concepts can be applied to tournament poker as well, there's just no discussion of ICM or anything.

Since it's just a model and you're never going to have a perfectly polarized range, I wasn't too picky about sizing (for the model). I also tried to avoid using a ton of math or calculus whenever possible.

FWIW, more often than not when raising IP I think you'll want to make smaller raises to force your opponent to play later streets OOP, then you can make larger bets as you see fit. Don't take a general rule too far though, and this is of course explained in a lot more detail throughout the rest of the book. Sometimes you may want to make a large raise on the flop on a very wet board, but remember when you do that it makes it easier for your opponent to fold more and then either 3-bet or fold when facing your flop raise.

While a bit off topic, I didn't know a lot of this stuff when I started writing the book. Also, there's a difference between understanding a concept and being able to apply it very quickly. I'm fairly confident if I moved overseas I'd be worse at poker than I am now and it would have been a bad life decision.

In the river chapter regarding The perfect size to bet river with. I got a bit confused, does the formula take into account our opponent's ability to check-raise ?

If we know villain beats us 15% of the time and we bet 0.83 of the pot (The example you used in the book I believe), then shouldn't villain know that exactly 15% of his range beats us, and can therefore check-raise this 15% for the maximum amount, along with bluffs (if we are very deep he could theoretically turn the rest of his range into a bluff, since he can just shove his whole stack as sizing)

And if he does this with a balanced range, the expected value of our hand becomes 0, so we were better off checking, meaning that this is not an equilibrium.

It depends on what section you're looking at. It eventually does try to (imperfectly) take into account the opponent's ability to check-raise, but even when it does it still isn't perfect. Removal effects can matter a LOT!, and there's no way to take that into account very well.

Keep reading and your questions should be answered, if not post them here and I'll answer them as best I can.