Yup, seems like KQo (some combos of it at least) will need to be turned into a bluff and you should clearly not bet also streets with AX/AJ (some combos can probably be bet on the flop and checked later while others checked now and bet later).

I tend to hate discussing spots like this because as you've probably already figured out there's likely man mixed strats as if you ever always do the same thing with a hand like AJo (which makes up so many combos in your range) it's probably exploitable.

In general, put the stronger hands in the range that makes the pot bigger.

So let's say the flop is 7 2 2 in the positions you described, and I would CB 100% of the time here (or very close to it). If the turn is a 8, I'm pretty much betting everything with robust equity (all flush draws, gutshots, OESD, etc) and I also think many overcards also have robust enough equity since a pair will very likely be good if opponent just c/c the turn (so I'd bet KQ for example and assume I can very comfortably bet river when I get there).

The hands I'd most emphasize checking would be some AX hands that still beat the opponent's AX hands. So I'd never bet A9 or A7 here for example.

With regards to your total garbage hands, I'd probably check most of the very weakest hands back (say Q4) and consider bluffing some (but not many) of them on the river, depending on what the river is and how you play your 7x hands.

It's probably a mistake (and I wouldn't put too much stock on my original pre-flop charts, you're better off reading the most recent 2+2 article I just posted about). I also probably now value some hands more highly than 98s in that position so I probably would no longer 4-bet it (I'd rather have A7s than 98s now for example, but who knows as that could easily be wrong).

That said, there are actually times when it makes sense to call or re-raise "weaker" hands and fold "better" hands. For example, there is at least one pre-flop situation where I know I'll defend 65s and fold T9s or something similar due to a removal effect and wanting to hit a few flop textures a bit better. This is really rare though and probably doesn't actually matter for all practical purposes, but it can actually happen.

If you look at PokerSnowie's pre-flop advisor, you will very rarely see it defend a combo like 65s and fold 98s for example. There's no way to know if that's right and the EV difference is probably insignificant, but it can conceptually make sense.

It's really hard to say and I don't want to push CardRunners in this thread, but I believe the sign up fee is still waived ( http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/12...nners-1459818/ ).

If you can see that series or watch all the videos you want in a month for $30-$40 (then from there decide if it helps), then it may be worth it. But if you've had good coaches and watched good videos before then more videos may not help. Blind vs button play is just hard and unfortunately it's something a lot of players struggle with.

Have you tried posting a lot of hands or talking hands through with friends? That also seems like a really good (and cheap) way to improve this aspect of your game. Also, you can post your button vs BB 3-betting range here and I'll comment on it and see if I can help.

P.S: I call sooooooooo much less vs a 3x open than vs a 2x open, but I still 3-bet a pretty similar (if not literally identical just for simplicity) range vs nearly all opening sizings. I would encourage you to do this as well.

Opening ranges are some combination of trial and error and what you feel can comfortably defend against a 3-bet. It can still be tricky though.

For example, if I jumped back in time 10 years ago I'd probably open 80%+ on the button, but if you do some maths you realize how insanely wide you have to defend vs 3-bets and how you could get crushed by the blinds if they 3-bet you aggressively. So trial and error might tell you to open 80%+ (when people weren't 3-betting enough) when in reality GTO is probably significantly tighter.

Hi Matthew,

I've just started reading the book and on the chapter Examining Complex Ranges - Defending Enough Against Opens. My question is on the example when you figure out that the button has EV of -.82 big blinds when called and said that it equates to 1.68 big blinds back from a pot of 5.5bb. I'm not sure where the 1.68 comes from, shouldn't it be = to 5.5 - (5.5*.82) which is .99?

Can you please clarify? I'm reading it on kindle and have no page numbers only location of 847 if that helps as a reference.

Thank you.

Hey Matt,

I'm assuming you would currently recommend PokerSnowie's pre-flop advisor over the ranges you recommend in the book, is that correct?

THanks!

If I had to make a guess RIGHT NOW without analyzing all it's ranges, then probably yes.

But keep in mind Snowie is pretty restricted on it's bet sizing (it always makes pot-sized 3-bets and 4-bets) so it probably has some pretty bad stuff in it's ranges too. I can think of a lot of examples both in my book and with Snowie's ranges that I think are pretty bad, but sure if I had to go with one right at this moment I'd go with Snowie. But don't ever do anything because a hand chart tells you to do it, always do what you think is most +EV and keep in mind the bet sizing of your opponent (for example, cold-calling ranges in the big blind will change DRASTICALLY based on button opening sizing, so if you are using a hand chart you may be taking many -EV lines against certain opening sizes).

Not sure exactly what you're referring to, but I think it's probably 2.5 - 0.82 = 1.68 if we assume a 2.5 big blind open. Let me know if that made things click and if not I'll try to help.

Hi:
When i try open the book appears this:

http://prntscr.com/44fgxo

¿What can i do?

Thanks

Unfortunately I am completely unequipped to help you with the technical aspect of reading the book.

Where did you buy the book and have you tried contacting them? PM if you can't get this worked out and I'll see what I can do to find someone else who can help you.

You mentioned that this value suggests that the blinds aren't defending aggressively enough and adjusted the percentages to arrive at -.29bb lost for the button, stating that this is a more reasonable number. Why do we want to increase our percentages so that the button loses less? Shouldn't the initial numbers that led to -.82bb be better since the button lose more money?

Nevermind. I got it thanks!

I was wondering how we think about constructing our c bet ranges as we face two or more players versus heads up?

Emphasize robust equity more (the ability to make a really strong hand) and raise your standard for how strong a hand needs to bet (both as a "bluff" and "for value")

What are your thoughts on the value of position on the following boards:

1. A68

2. J96

3. TT7

4. T55

I think position is probably most valuable on the J96r board and least valuable on the As6s8c board.

Of the two remaining, I think position is more valuable on the Th5d5h than TcTd7s.


The value of position could change for all of these based on what happened pre-flop though.

So position is more valuable the more dynamic the board gets? That does seem to make sense.

Does this affect our strategies in any way? Like let's say OTF, should we c-bet more frequntly IP on dynamic boards say SRP, BTN vs BB? Or check more frequently OOP in 3BP, BB vs BTN?

When a range is perfectly polarized, position has no value. I think that's the easiest way to start thinking about it.

On really crazy boards like 9 7 5 with wide ranges, ranges are going to be very far from polarized. So it makes sense position will be super valuable here. On a K 2 2 board I'd of course always like position, but it's much less of a big deal.

It depends on the strength of each range mostly for how aggressively someone should continuation bet. What is SRP?

Ok thanks for the explanation. SRP = Single-Raised Pot

Hi Matt, I was wondering if you could help me out. I’m trying to work through my own example of the theory/formula on p337 about value betting vs an opponent who also has a check raise range.

In my example, I am betting pot and the opponent is calling with the top 50% of his range. Against his calling range our hand has 53.87% equity, so when called we lose 46.13% of the time. He check raises his top 5% of hands along with 2.5% bluffs.

Making bet size = pot size = 1 I tried to use your formula:

Ev of betting relative to checking = (bet size)(frequency opponent calls with the worst hand)-(bet size)(frequency opponent calls or check-raises the better hand)-(bet size + pot size) frequency opponent check raise bluffs)

(1)(0.5*0.5387)-(1)(0.5*0.4613)-(1+1)(0.025)=-0.0113

This negative answer implies checking back is superior.

My set up is different from the way you set up your example on page 338 in the book and when I tried to imitate your way I got a different (although still negative) answer. Moreover, when I tried to solve for the ev of betting and checking individually I got the following.

Expected value of betting:

(Opponent folding frequency*pot size)+(frequency opponent calls with worse)(pot size+bet size)-(frequency opponent calls or raises with better)(bet size)-(frequency opponent check raise bluffs)(bet size)

So for the first 3 terms we have:

(0.5*1)+(0.5*0.5387)(2)-(0.5*0.4613)(1)

Taking his check raise bluffs from his folding range we have the ev of betting as:

(0.475*1)+(0.5*0.5387)(2)-(0.5*0.4613)(1)-(0.025)(1)=0.75805

Expected value of checking:

We always win the pot vs check folding range and win the rest of the time according to our equity vs his calling range:

0.5(1)+(0.5*0.5387)(1)-(0.5*0.4613)(1)=0.5387

As 0.75805>0.5387, this implies betting is superior.

If you or anyone else in this thread gets a chance to point out my mistake(s), it would really be appreciated.

Hi Matt,

On page 220, you said, when our range is strong we should favour betting, when our range is weak, we should favour ch/r or ch/f.

You used a formula to get to that conclusion, if I understood correctly.

I don't quite get it, could you maybe explain it without the maths.

Is it, that when our range is weak, we are check/folding often, so its easier to balance our value hands within our checking range?

Thanks

Hi Matthew,

I am a hyper husng grinder and i want to learn some gto. Do you think your book is good for me? is the methodology in your book applicable to hyper husngs´s ?

Posted this in the Theory forum about defending against 3bets:

'I'm currently creating a balanced defending range that involves me 4betting around 30% of my range in a specific spot. The only thing I'm unsure about is should i be defending 30% of my pfr in this spot or 30% of my rfi (raise first in)?

Thanks '

Is villain calling or defending 50% of the time? I'm guessing it's the latter, in which case once you bet you're not getting called and winning (0.5*0.5387) because he's not calling half the time, he's defending half the time.

If villain is calling 50% and raising 7.5%, then he's defending 57.5% and you'll never bluff, so I don't think that's what you meant to do.