The problem i have with this is that there might be spots where one player can profitably bet ATC and our strategy just needs to cut down our loses. It should be:
a)either he can bet ATC profitably, and we need to defend in a way that loses the least
or
b)he cant bet ATC so we need to defend x% to not allow him to do it (cause we would be exploited)
What makes us think that b) is the case in every spot? I can imagine that with position+lucky flop, there will be spots where the BTN just bets atc (=meaning his whole range, which could hit really hard). Our BB defending strategy can "sacrifice" some flops, if they arent too common and by that sacrifice we gain on other flops (this is very different from having loss-leaders in our range, just in case somebody confuses it).

Regarding the slowplay to prevent overbets - basically if you dont slowplay, you cap your checking range, which in turn can be exploited by balanced overbetiing on all streets like in the multiple streets AKQ game, where you hold the K.

Ty alkaatch,

8hi and lower occurs ~15% of the time, I think I'm going to have similar problems on 9hi and some Thi flops, so I don't think BT is getting particularly lucky.
I doubt there are many flops that my range is strong enough on to gain back what I lose, considering my positional disadvantage.

I'm starting to think my pre-flop range is too weak. Would you say 24% call is too weak with 16% 3bet?(vs 2.5x opens)

But your are still playing OOP, your play from BB would be mostly trying to not lose much. So while I think that constructing a defense against cbet range (a BTN flat vs CO open range for example) so that the CO cannot profit from cbeting his whole range is a good idea, I have some doubt for this metod when we are OOP, because we expect to lose something in this spot in general (against optimal opponents) so I dont see why I cant allow him to bet ATC. Even when I allow it, he might play something else which yields even bigger profit the ATC bet. So basicaly if I expect him to make a profit in this spot, I dont know how big this profit is and the ATC bet strategy might profit against me and still not be optimal. And trying to construct my range so that I deny him te possibility of ATC doesnt make sense to me in such a spot.

Edit: I am curious what Matt has to say about this, I generaly like your approach in most cases. I dont have the book available right now, cause I borrowed it to a friend who likes it a lot... But I feel like you didnt adress why you think a "dont allow him to play ATC" should be OK in every spot. Sorry if I am mistaken and you indeed did that.

Since you asked the question, I did some more calculations on it, and I'm now much happier letting him +EV cbet against me on those low flops and a few high ones. He isn't making as much as I previously thought, perhaps less than half a bb overall, where as I thought he was making 1.25bb(some calculation errors on my part). So I don't think he is able to open a hand like Q2o against me. I need to do some more work on it to be sure, but feeling a lot more confident about it now. Thanks for the assist.

Regarding opening - if he opens Q2o for 3bb and is then able to make like 1bb from cbeting it, he is still -2bb for the hand, so even when hes able to ATC cbet you profitably, that doesnt mean hes making profit overall.

Hey Matthew,

Really enjoyed your book.

I have a question about X/R'ing flop in the sample hand 1 and sample hand 4. In the first hand you opt to X/R the lowest set and bet the middle set. In the sample hand 4, however, you choose to do the opposite - X/R the middle set and bet the lowest set. There does not seem to be any obvious blocker effects in play. I understand that those hands are only meant to be examples, but I want to know if there's some reasoning behind it.

Also, I've noticed some players betting small with high frequency on low paired boards IP and similar low -dry flops. You've said yourself earlier in the thread that you might bet 100% of your range for 45% pot IP on a low and dry flop. I wonder how balancing these and similar spots works in theory. Should we bet a more condensed range for value and protection in those spots, and add fewer flop bluffs because of a smaller sizing?

Matthew, could we analyze some spot from the book here? If you find some time for it...I would like to see what exactly are the assumptions and what is derived by gto principles from them. I was probably wrong when I said, that you dont adress the possibility of a profitable ATC bet in some spots, but I am not sure how you got around it...

Also, one question that strikes me, is that the optimal strategy might do some ugly moves like folding the nuts on river, folding AA to a single preflop shove etc. The reason for this is, that when our opponent makes a move wich isnt part of the GTO "game tree", than our response can be anything. So if our opponent shoves 100bbs preflop and assuming such a move inst part of the GTO strategy, then our response is not prescribed by the GTO strategy. Isnt this a bit problematic - we might be trying to find optimal moves in spots which really arent on a "GTO path". What do others thing about that?

I can't imagine I have a 40% wider calling range vs OOP than IP, so I don't think I'm understanding you properly.

In general I will emphasize calling more in position than out of position when facing a 3-bet, though to be honest I defend against 3-bets (and even 4-bets) a lot more often by calling than re-raising regardless of whether I'm IP or OOP.

For example, when I do play HU (I don't play very much online but do once in a while) I am defending much more often by calling a 4-bet than 5-betting all-in, despite the fact that I'm usually not too happy having to flat a 4-bet OOP.

Long story short is I am very much in the flat 3-bets and 4-bets OOP camp now, despite the fact that nearly everyone used to think that was bad several years ago. Pot odds are a helluvathing.

I think defending 60% vs a CB after cold-calling an open pre-flop in the big blind is a bad idea. Most opening ranges just crush the big blind calling range, especially if the open is very small (such as when the button makes a 2.5BB open).

Some boards you will defend 60%+, but other boards defending 50% (or even less) is fine. Remember, your range is weaker than his and you're OOP with a lot of stack depth, so him being able to profitably bluff any two cards in many spots is almost certainly fine.

See the above post, I don't think B is the case in every spot (or anywhere close to that).

People are still in general pretty bad at bet sizing. 5 years from now I doubt people will miss overbets as often as they do now (in general), but for now at most limits on most sites you can get away with not slowplaying with very little fear of being exploited. TBH I've yet to have someone tell me their average opponent overbets too much, while I know many people who play in games where they say their opponent's almost never overbet.

I don't play much so I'm not trying to act like I'm some grinder, but I can't remember the last time I slowplayed a strong hand on a board that's even reasonably wet. You just don't get punished for not doing it and raising now is so profitable.

You can post whatever you'd like here. The problem is some of the concepts you're asking about are pretty time consuming and difficult to discuss (especially just via text) and I think a lot of time me trying to answer complex questions quickly does more harm than good.

My entire approach to poker is based around picking the low hanging fruit and applying common sense (so always looking for contradictions in my thought process). There were quite a few theoretical concepts left out of the book because in reality trying to apply the concepts would be so incredibly difficult for a negligible amount of additional EV.

I have no idea how GTO responds to silly bets, but as I understand it a GTO player doesn't just do anything when the opponent takes a silly line. As I understand it, there is still an optimal response. But either way, when the opponent takes a silly line and you understand GTO poker pretty well, it should be pretty easy to see what line you should actually be taking in practice. I don't think anyone needs to be told not to fold aces pre-flop or the nuts on the river regardless of what GTO has to say about it (though it would say to cawl).

I kind of just go "meh" and put hands in ranges sometimes. I'd rather CR middle set sometimes and I'd rather CR bottom set sometimes depending on the board texture (it's really, really awesome when we overset the opponent for example, but I sometimes middle set will have a bad removal effect).

I like to CB low boards at a high frequency with a small sizing when playing HU. The person I talk the most HU with (who is clearly better than me) disagrees and prefers to bet less with bigger sizing. I think he's wrong, he thinks I'm wrong, we both understand each other's reasoning so we both just kind of roll with it and know neither one of us really knows what is correct.

If we are CB near 100% of the time then our CB range is far from polarized and the term "bluff" and "value" bet don't work. Those terms will work a lot better on the turn and perfectly on the river though.

Here you were responding to another poster regarding why having the initiative in general is not really worth anything. Can you explain what you meant by the "advantages of betting?" Taking the lead in general without specific reason or the stronger range should not really give us any sort of advantage? Just wondering if you could elaborate a bit as far as what you meant here.

Thanks,

Steve

Hey Steve,

Betting usually allows you to play the easier (usually more polarized) range whereas check-calling forces you to play a more condensed range (the medium strength stuff). Yeah there are exceptions, but that's usually the case.

The bettor usually has an advantage on the following street as the betting range will usually be stronger than the calling range.

Betting causes the opponent to fold some hands with equity, which is one of the two reasons you should be betting (the other is to get value from low equity hands).

Regarding trying to take the lead, another way to look at this is there are probably lots of spots where I would be pretty happy if I donk bet and my opponent only called or folded. But I don't know if he'll only call or fold, so it's not reasonable for me to say "See, the flop donk bet was good here because I'm in good shape on the turn" when in reality if I were to have been raised on the flop it'd be bad news bears for me (as now I'm playing against a polarized range for a big pot with many streets to act).

Thanks, I would like to know this: if we assume that our opponent shouldnt be able to profitably bet his whole range, we can estimate our minimal defending range. What about spots, where we think he actually might be able to bet his whole range - how do we guess on the size of our defending/continuing range (what theorems from game theory are we using might be the real question)?

Regarding the off-equilibrium path question: I am not worried about calling 100bb shoves with aces or playing nuts on the river, these were just extreme examples. What I am trying to understand is this: if we are trying to apply GTO concepts on the flop lets say, are we assuming that we got to that flop through a GTO path? Becasuse if the concrete spot isnt really on the GTO path, we might be trapped in trying to guess a GTO response while the GTO response is really any play we make. Or do we treat the flop as a seperate game, where players are seeing flop with some fixed ranges and starting pot? Maybe with the idea of comparing value of such game to the price it costs each player to get to such spot?

I just dont undestard p85.
when will I be IP and when in OOP in that chart.

HI Matthew,

in chapter:"examining complex ranges - defending enough against opens" I didnt understood the concept at all, because you merely didnt tell what our goal in this equations is and what to do with it. In your first example you took lower 3B defending values for the blinds and the result for the weakest opening hand in button was -0.82. after that you took higher 3B defending values and the outcome was -0.29. I merely dont know now, when trying to adapt ranges, for example I want to create an opening range when SB or BB isnt optimal 3Betting so that I can plug in all the "wrong" values and adapt my opening range on it. and I dont know how to do it because I dont know what to do with these -0.29. Is the goal to get it near 0 because you try to find the equilibrium? would be great if you could tell in short steps like 1... and 2... what I have to do (mathematically) to get my own opening range when the blinds are 3betting or calling in a wrong way. thx a lot for helping

I guess the MaxEV sizing formula won't work for value raising, since the player will continue different percentages optimally vs a raise or a bet, even if they are the same% of the pot. Any way around this? Or do you know if the formula for this situation is in MOP perhaps?

Reason i ask is, I'm trying to figure out how to balance a smaller bet sizing on the river.
For instance betting 29% pot with a certain hand that is beat 30% of the time(optimal sizing), to find out if it's worth it or not(highest EV).
I also want to find out how many combos of a stronger hand I need to bet, so I can value bet the weaker hand. I'm a little lost though, since if i bet the same number of combos with both, I think villain may still be able to value raise a hand in the middle, and that's a lot of combos of strong hands to sacrifice. Also, not sure how strong the balancing hand needs to be, but I'm guessing you need to stop villain raising a certain percentage(unknown to me) of his range.
Maybe this is all a bit too complex to answer here though, just ignore it in that case.

Thanks for answering my other question, very helpful.

Hey Matthew, excellent book. It makes me feel stupid, but I'm working my way through it. I do have a couple of questions if you don't mind.

Is there a certain criteria for what's considered a "value raise"? Would it be how much equity your hand has against the range you're facing?

For example consider the flop JT9 (ranges are from your book)
QQ vs UTG open = ~66%
QQ vs CO open = ~73%
Would a raise vs the UGG open be considered a draw raise and vs the CO open a value raise?

Hi Matthew, I wanted to start out echoing everyone's sentiments that this book is absolutely fantastic. As someone who is an experienced nlhe player, and is currently working on making his preflop game more solid/balanced I have found your pf hand chart to be immensely helpful. An analogy that I like to use when it comes to learning is that of being a winning blackjack player. The first thing you must learn in order to be a winning blackjack player is obviously basic strategy, and it is not until you learn how to count does it become correct to deviate from said strategy. Similarly, in poker, in order to play preflop well, I am of the belief that it is necessary to have a base model down. Your chart is as good a reference as I have found. Thus, I have been using it while grinding the micros until my feel tightens up a bit. My question for you is this, and sorry if it has been asked, or if I am just a dumbass who completely missed it. There doesn't appear to be a 3 betting the sb from the bb range listed, does it exist? I would assume that it is essentially the same type of range we would construct from the button against the cutoff, except slightly looser due to the fact that a. the small blind will be opening more aggressively than the cutoff, and b.) there is no possibility of getting called or 4 bet cold by anyone in the blinds.

Posts in this thread relevant to your question:
#671, #582 #523, #282, #202, you might want to check out post #62 as well for 3betting stuff.

UTG vs IP 3-Bet means you open in UTG and face a 3bet from MP/CO or BT.
UTG vs OOP 3-Bet means you open in UTG and face a 3bet from SB or BB.

A spot where someone can probably profitably bet any two cards is BTN vs BB on the flop where button has position and the much stronger range (especially if button min-raised) or post-flop spots where someone gives up initiative (so a player bets flop then checks turn OOP). There's some work you can do to see if you're defending too much or too little, but honestly it's probably worse than just guessing and learning through trial and error. Kind of like how pre-flop opening ranges are more or less learned through mostly trial and error and a little bit of theory.

I'm having trouble understanding what you're getting at here so this might not answer your question.

If you try to play GTO at micro or small stakes where people take many bad lines (and realistically you won't play close to GTO, just play solid and closer to GTO than your opponents) you'll still win money even if you end up making mistakes against their bad ranges sometimes.

I play on anonymous 6-max tables or HU tables when I do play. I pretty much play against most players like how I'd play against me until they give me a reason not to. I have no doubt I am constantly 3-betting too aggressively vs some players or calling 3-bets too wide since I don't know their ranges, but if I just play as solid as I can I'll still beat them (hopefully by a lot) as they will end up making mistakes against my ranges which are designed to beat good opponents.

So I guess what I'm saying is if I open button and some anonymous SB 3-bets me, I don't think "Hmmmmm, is my opponent 3-betting a linear range here, a polarized range, or perhaps is he a fish who only 3-bets for value?" I just know what my default 3-bet calling ranges are and more or less use them and then on the flop I'll try to play on the flop how I would against a good player, which more or less results in me assuming my opponent is using a linear SB 3-betting range and often being pleasantly surprised when he is not.

The worst hand in an opening range should probably be about 0 EV (it would literally be 0 EV if it's part of a mixed strat).

So assume you open to 3BB. If you get 3-bet, you lose 3BB with the worst opening hand in your range (as you'll obviously fold). If all your opponents fold, you'll win 1.5BB. Now what you can do is see how often you think your open is called and calculate how much money you'll need to win or lose overall for the hand when called for you to break even on your open. If this value seems reasonable, you're probably on the right track and your worst opening hand isn't likely too weak or too strong. The (messy) math in the book is just showcasing this process of trying to estimate what hands are +EV opens and what hands are not.

At the end of the day opening ranges pre-flop are probably best found through trial and error. You can prove some stuff in pre-flop is clearly wrong (at the time of writing the pre-flop section people were folding way, way too much to 3-bets pre-flop in general), but you can't really calculate what the best opening ranges are by using theory.

Off the top of my head I do not, sorry.

This seems like a pretty time consuming computation and you'll obviously have to make a lot of assumptions (for example, how often you're raised when you're beat and how big your opponent raises).

Can I ask what stakes you are playing? I know a few people who have done computations like this, but this is stuff to do at like NL$500+ (zoom or very tough games) when you've already more or less picked all the low hanging fruit for improving your game and really want to spend time doing stuff that will only give you a very very slight increase in your winrate. (You don't need to post the stakes you're playing if you don't want to, I just want to stress that I don't think calculations like this are all that important unless you really are already very very good).

I don't like the terms "value" and "bluff" much anymore unless we're on the river, but they're pretty much unavoidable.

Bets are basically meant to do one of the following:

#1) Get value from worse hands.

#2) Deny the opponent the ability to realize his equity.

While some hands may clearly do just one or the other and be called "value bets" or "bluffs," many hands which are bets half-ass both. So betting 88 on a K73 board is often good because it half-ass denies the opponent equity and half-ass gets value from 7x/AQ/AJ stuff. As such the term neither value bet or bluff works. If I ever do a detailed update of the book or write a new article perhaps I'll just call them "half-ass" bets for clarity.

When writing or explaining a concept there's always a trade off between precision and simplicity. I more or less chose a hand as a value bet or bluff based on how much equity it has and how robust it's equity was, but there was no rule I always stuck with.