Thanks for doing this. I appreciate when others chime in (even if they disagree with me or aren't 100% sure they're correct).

I'm predominantly an MTT player but I bought your book and watched your mtt series on cardrunners - very nice

Do you think it would be gto to have a limping range (outside of the sb) in mtts when there's antes in play? Since we have a limping range in the sb which enables us to play more hands than a raise or fold strategy then do you think we can expand that to a balanced btn limping range and then co and so on ?

I know snowie never limps outside of sb but would the extra antes entice it to develop a balanced limping range on the btn for example so it can play more hands , since we're risking 1bb to maybe see a 4 or 5bb pot

Particularly since you said "correct" opening sizings in MTTs should be >3bb when antes are in play that's quite a high proportion of an mtt stack sometimes so it makes sense to me to be limping quite a high % of hands

Glad you liked the MTT series and enjoyed the book. In the future though it'd probably be better to ask MTT questions on CR and book questions here. I know there's a ton of overlap but it's easier if I try to keep them separate as other people watching the MTT series might want to also see your questions or start a discussion with you.

Whoa dude, whoa. I did not say the bolded. There are times when I think a 3BB open can be good, but that's definitely not true for every stack depth and ante size will also likely matter.

For most stack sizes, I don't think a limping strat in the BTN is likely to be very good as you have position and are only against two random hands which you want to apply pressure too. The dead monies is basically a huge deal and what really incentivizes the SB to develop a limping strat I think since your limp is 50% off. Without that 50% off price tag we're probably better off with another sizing that puts more pressure on the blinds.

I really don't know super shallow stack play at all and without having an understanding of all the different all-in equities it's hard for me to have much of an opinion. That said I've honestly never thought about it though and it is an interesting idea and if I get a stronger opinion I'll shoot you a PM and let you know.

Oh sorry , didn't mean to misquote you from the vids I thought you originally said something like that and afterwards used a 2.5bb open size for your examples

Thank you ,your answer is help me a lot!

Number 4 seems good, just too bad i use only one size as i am building a more one size strategy for all streets, though cbet size adjusted, but preflop needs two ranges then.

This book i will read next week, likely helps, though i dont believe in gto if it is ignoring stats and playing gto only. I am though trying to get as close to fit vs. all stats strategy but i cant ignore the stats, hud stats, or notes. I dont want to do thinking either, just play a system or a mixed system.

I like gold books gap concept as cold call, but seems this book instead will 3b there and i dont like that at micros, the cc being more fit and safe there, plus fits vs. more players, serving my purposes.

Applications book wants to raise out ev instead, that i might use oop, but not sure yet, though i am very aggro there at this time, squeezing one late opener and has been working, though i am no good post flop, more or less cbetting as bet bet as default or not cbetting at all, depending on flop, or picture flops i probably cbet one shot only until vs. a whale, giving the pot to one pair in other cases, even to ace high, but i have no idea but seems like reasonable vs. micro players i dont expect to float on those flops.

Streets of value and balancing i also know, but i additionally protect with bets and even raises on every street, all these being just another way to lose money maybe, compared to giving rope and calling. I dont give any rope as a general rule as i have no idea what they bet after my check, and so i am top sceptical if such checking can possibly be good without high technical skills and an enormous amount of experience. It is said a caller is a loser, so there must be a point. I like something more simple and do my best to get there as much as possible, three nlh books on the list to improve my system building further.

I'd probably check all 4 hands, but I think TT would be a slightly better bet than AQs, because the former is vulnerable to overcards, whilst "nut air" obviously isn't. We have worse Axcc that we could triple with. I think some of the value of AQs comes from villain having some dominated aces and queens in his range. We don't really want those folding on the flop.
It's obviously pretty close. Checking or betting AQs/TT won't be a big mistake either way. A lot probably depends on villain's check-raising tendencies.

Those are good points. It honestly might even depend on how big the CO opens as a 3x open and min-raise are going to change how many 8x/7x are in his range pretty drastically. I would CB TT if we min-raised the CO.

Snowie has made me a pretty big fan of betting the overcards with the BDFD though so I'd still definitely bet AQcc here but check AQo.

I'm not sure I'm completely understanding what you're saying but if you're saying calling is a "losing play" (I know Super Systems hated calling) then that's certainly not true from a GTO standpoint or really if you are just playing reasonably good opponents. You just have to check marginal hands (often to check-call) despite not liking it all the time as it's the most +EV line. You really can't play good poker and not get into tough spots.

AQs on k87 w backdoor flu looks like a standard ch ip, and a standard bet oop with the idea to barrel if it turns a draw, as it wont necessarily get a free card oop. It has showdown value and wont bet out better high cards. Even ch lesser slicks w backdoors might be right.

66 has two or three outs and is only a hope to see a showdown, though has like no bet value but gives 6 outs. Cr isnt a dog. I think i would bet this hand and ch turn to get my outs and fold river. This is a one street hand at best. King high flop here is supposed to be a good enough bet. I would be more likely to ch with bottom pair as it has 5 outs, and i read that from ss2, sort of, and have used it often and like it. The 66 figure to have a similar idea but the reason to ch are the outs that it doesnt really have, until it bets the flop with a turn check, or it could bet the turn also, if one plays that style, or the turn looks good for it. It could bet a better pair out then.

QQ might bet in position as it is a bit better after the opponent checks, but to avoid a cr from a dr one might ch and then have trouble on the turn and river instead. This hand gives the opponent some negative free cards also, not just the ace. I would ch this hand until i felt i better bet it for one reason or the other, no cr coming, or and to get away from it or get more value by betting, eg. ace or worse calling a bet.

TT is relatively about as good as qq but as w 66, a bet eliminates free cards, that is less of a problem on the turn if one bet the flop. The opponent isnt all likely to hold 9t, 96. I would bet this one and think about a pot control bet on the turn, that might even get another call from middle pair.

I just checked in Snowie (I was curious) for a 3x open and Snowie checks all the hands back. That of course doesn't mean Snowie is right and I still do like betting AcQc as I think people play worse against the bet in general here but it's quite possible we're discussing which hand is best to bet with out of 4 hands that are likely in theory checks.

I'm usually ok with any line someone can justify pretty well but I think you'll have the hardest time justifying 66.

Great book, I just finished reading it! :-)

I would like to discuss the hand example on page 174-175. MP opens and hero calls on the button with this range:
JJ-33,AQs-ATs,KTs+,QTs+,J9s+,T9s,98s,87s,76s,65s,54s,AQo+

MP checks the flop of Qh8c6s and hero decides to either check or bet 75% pot.

I will list my thought processes in order at this point, for when I am doing detailed analysis of this hand in Equilab Hold'em and Notepad and Calculator. I have done detailed analysis like this for a long time now for various hands in various situations. My strategy changes based on: stats, reads, images, positions, stack sizes, steaks level, and site. I am considering not only my opponents but also their view of me.

1. WHAT HANDS WILL I TRIPLE BARREL FOR VALUE?
I will value bet with hands that can be triple barreled profitably. I'm including KQs here since MP's check seems weak and he may call down with stuff like QJs/QTs/JJ. At my steaks/site people don't check-call or check-raise much in this type of spot as a trap as the preflop aggressor with stuff like KK/88. At different steaks/sites and with certain stats/reads/images/positions/stack sizes for me and my opponents, the situation may change and I may check KQ. For now I expect my river bet to win at least half the time if I triple barrel KQ personally. I will check back QJs/QTs, in part as a trap, and in part since I may not be able to triple barrel it and win at least 50% of the time on the river using normal bet sizing. Checking the three KQs combos means that I should bet-fold three less combos as well, depending on the bet/raise sizing.

2. BET MEDIUM STRENGTH PAIRS?
At the moment I don't prefer to bet a hand like 99/98s to get my opponent to check-fold some unpaired high card hands with equity. If I was in MP's spot I wouldn't be checking non-Ace unpaired high card hands (KJo/KJs/KTs/K9s/JTs/J9s/T9s/97s/54s) here, since they can't really check down and win unimproved and they are towards the bottom of MP's range. They are vastly weaker than AK here and maybe MP and me would check at least most of his Ace high hands and then check-call his stronger ones like AK and check-fold his weaker ones like A9s. So maybe a bet with 99/98s to get opponent to fold out his unpaired high card hands with equity would only work against hands like ATs/A9s/A7s/A5s although I haven't done a detailed analysis for what I'd do in MP's situation. Checking back 99/98s gives me more hands which can call a turn bet. So I like checking back hands from QJs down to 8x and usually even weaker pairs as well. Weaker pairs like 55 can check down the flop and turn and river and win unimproved. But my exact bet-folding range has not been decided at this point. If I check back 99 and MP has ATs, most turn cards will not improve him, and he may bluff. If I bet 99 and MP has ATs, he may fold on the flop.

3. HAVE BET-3BET-CALL AND BET-3BET-FOLD RANGES?
This flop is dry enough that I am not bet-3bet-calling sets to get value/protection from draws, and I am not balancing this with a bet-3bet-folding range. This means that my three ranges on this flop are bet-call and bet-fold and check.

4. BET SIZE OPTIONS?
At this point I am not as experienced with balancing multiple bet sizings (like bigger with 88 and smaller with QTs), so I will just bet the same size with my entire betting range. On this specific flop I use 2/3rd pot (my site does not have a 75% pot button but has other size buttons plus a slider bar and a text input box). But I can see a possible case for using 75% pot and multiple bet sizings also. If I had two bet sizings here then I would have five ranges to balance: bigger bet-call, bigger bet-fold, smaller bet-call, smaller bet-fold, and check. This may be better than the earlier three ranges but I'll have to consider using multiple bet sizings more. For this specific example, since you used 75% pot in the book, I will use 75% pot to make things easier. My bet-call range is 21 combos: 88,66,AQs,KQs,AQo

5. DEFEND ENOUGH TO A CHECK MIN-RAISE?
I will add the maximum amount of bet-fold combos that I can, while still defending enough of my betting range with bet-calls when facing a check min-raise. When people check-raise they usually make it bigger than a min check-raise, and I don't have to defend as much of my betting range to that. Nevertheless, I feel like having a strong enough betting range so that I can defend wide enough against a min check-raise. If I have too many bet-fold combos and face a check min-raise then I will either bet-fold excessively or make a weak bet-call with something like KJs with a backdoor flush draw. I am betting a polarized range here and don't want to make those weak calls. If I had a merged/condensed range it would be a different story and I could defend my betting range wider with hands like QTs.

If the flop size is $9.50 (9.5 big blinds) and I bet 2/3rd pot of $7.12 (my site rounds down to nearest cent) and MP check min-raises to $14.24, he risks $14.24 to win $16.62. I will use this formula to see how much I need to defend my bets to a raise: Pot / (Bet + Pot). $16.62 / ($14.24 + $16.62) = 53.86%. I have 21 bet-call combos of 88, 66, AQs, KQs, AQo. 21 divided by 0.5386 is 38.99, which I round up to 39 (maximum number of betting combos). 39 minus 21 is 18, which means that I can bet-fold max 18 combos here.

Keep in mind that when I bet-call with something like AQ/88, MP has a chance to realize his equity and/or get lucky on the turn with his check-raise semi-bluffs. To counter this, according to your book, I should defend my bets even more than 55.56% of the time to a min check-raise. Maybe I should defend 60% or 65% of my betting range, but at this point I'll use less. I'm still not understanding enough the logic behind defending excessively wide to the check-raise though.

I looked at my range in Equilab Hold'em: JJ-33,AQs-ATs,KTs+,QTs+,J9s+,T9s,98s,87s,76s,65s,54s,AQo+

There are five types of hands in my range. I removed 88/66/AQs/AQo/KQs to see my options for bet-folding. For me personally I think that pairs from QJs down to 87s are easy checks. The other three hand types are weak pairs 77 and lower, Ace high, and weaker high card hands. Remember that I only want to bet-fold max 18 combos here, so I want to pick my weakest hands. I can check down 55/AKo unimproved and win, and also hit a set or top pair on the turn or river. I think it's easy to find the 18 bet-fold combos. I can't check down 54s and win unimproved or hit a strong pair or hit a straight often enough. I want to check down my weakest high card hands in this spot. These are my 18 bet-fold combos: J9s+, T9s, 54s, KdTd, KcTc. I bet-folded KdTd since it doesn't have a backdoor flush draw, and since I rank suits in order from spades to hearts to diamonds to clubs, I also bet-fold KdTd. In this specific spot all of my bet-folding range has outs against MP's check-calling range, but if they were very weak like 5d4d on a JsTs9s flop then things may change.

Combine those two ranges to get my full betting range of 39 combos: J9s+,T9s,54s,KdTd,KcTc,88,66,AQs,KQs,AQo

Remove that range from my original range to get my checking range of 86 combos:
JJ-99,77,55-33,AJs-ATs,KJs,QTs+,98s,87s,76s,65s,KhTh,KsTs,AKo

6. BONUS THOUGHTS AND DIFFERENCES OF OUR STRATEGIES:
-Things change based on stats, reads, images, positions, stack sizes, steaks level and site. In this specific spot I am assuming that I am playing against a 100bb unknown. A general strategy at the micro steaks will very from a general strategy at the small steaks.
-My default preflop calling range is a bit different. I add QQ and 22 and AKs. I make more money with suited Aces than suited connectors in general, but I am playing at micro steaks and there are more loose and bad players. So I may add more suited Aces and remove some suited connectors/1-gappers. Also, I prefer T8s to 54s since it has better high card and flush value, even though it has weaker straight value.
-I will triple barrel KQs since I am not afraid of MP trapping.
-I am not convinced that an optimal opponent will be bet-folding much unpaired high card hands so I don't have too much need to bet something like 99/98s, although most opponents aren't playing near optimally. Opponent may check-fold ATs when I bet with 99, but if I check 99, most turn cards will not improve MP and he may bluff with ATs.
-One bet sizing for 88/66/AQ and possibly KQs can be used. And another bet sizing for QJs/QTs and possibly KQs/JJ can be used. But for now I am not as familiar with this type of strategy. Both bet sizings would have to be balanced with semi-bluffs and bluffs of course.
-My betting range should be able to defend enough against a check min-raise even though that will not happen much. Also I don't want to bet call with something like KJs with a backdoor flush draw, so I should not bet-fold excessively. My betting range is maximally polarized.
-Since my opponent can realize his equity on the turn when I bet-call, maybe I should defending my betting range wider, meaning less bet-fold combos.
-Maybe I will make a new post in which I list my MP strategy here, with three bet sizings and these seven ranges: big bet-call (QQ/88/66), big bet-fold, medium bet-call (AQ), medium bet-fold, small bet-call (KQ, QJs, QTs), small bet-fold, and check.
-Maybe I will also put in a new post some new strategies for the button based on three possible bet sizings and seven ranges: big bet-call (88, 66), big bet-fold, medium bet-call (AQ, KQs), medium bet-fold, small bet-call (QJs, QTs), small bet-fold, and check.

7. MY RANGES:
Starting range (125 combos): JJ-33,AQs-ATs,KTs+,QTs+,J9s+,T9s,98s,87s,76s,65s,54s,AQo+
Bet-Call range (21 combos): 88,66,AQs,KQs,AQo
Bet-Fold range (18 combos): J9s+,T9s,54s,KdTd,KcTc
Total Bet range (39 combos): 88,66,AQs,KQs,J9s+,T9s,54s,KdTd,KcTc,AQo
Check range (86 combos): JJ-99,77,55-33,AJs-ATs,KJs,QTs+,98s,87s,76s,65s,KhTh,KsTs,AKo

What do you think? Good luck, Yojimgari

Looks good Yojimgari. I have lots of notepad files with a similar amount of detail.
As an example of how a book can inspire someone to work on their game, your post is a great review!

SECTION 1: RANDOM QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS:

What are in the text files exactly Arty McFly?

What is your review of the book? I think it's a great book and I took a lot of notes and will re-read it eventually!

I made a couple typos in my previous post:
1. I wrote "I am not convinced that an optimal opponent will be bet-folding much unpaired high card hands so I don't have too much need to bet something like 99/98s". This should be "I am not convinced that an optimal opponent will be check-folding much unpaired high card hands so I don't have too much need to bet something like 99/98s".
2. I wrote "I want to check down my weakest high card hands in this spot.". This should be "I want to check down my strongest high card hands in this spot.".

---

SECTION 2: TYPES OF VALUE BETTING HANDS

We can divide our value betting hands into basically four groups:
1. Four streets of value: 88, 66
2. Three streets of value: AQ, KQs
3. Two streets of value: QJs, QTs
4. One street of value: JJ, TT, 99, possibly A8s/98s/87s

Note that I'd rather check QJs/QTs on the flop and try to bet on good turns and rivers. Also note that I'd rather check JJ/TT/99/A8s/98s/87s on the flop and turn and will bet at least some of those hands on good rivers if the turn was also good.

Assuming that MP bets with QQ/88/66/AA/KK/AQ and has a normal preflop raising range:
1. QJs is behind 8 combos of KQ and ahead of 26 combos of QTs/JJ/TT/99/A8s/98s/87s. Not counting ties, it beats 76% of good bluff catchers.
2. QTs is behind 10 combos of KQ/QJs and ahead of 24 combos of JJ/TT/99/A8s/98s/87s. Not counting ties, it beats 71% of good bluff catchers.
3. JJ is behind 16-17 combos of KQ/QJs/QTs and beats 21 combos of TT/99/A8s/98s/87s. Not counting ties, it beats 56% of good bluff catchers.
4. TT is behind 22-23 combos of KQ/QJs/QTs/JJ and beats 15 combos of 99/A8s/98s/87s. Not counting ties, it beats 40% of good bluff catchers.

A normal MP player is rarely calling down with enough bluff catchers that JJ beats. Plus if hero triple value bets small he can face a check-raise and fold the best hand as well. This concept is discussed in the book. When you bet small with a two streets of value hand like JJ, and face a check-raise and call, you have already have put in your two streets of value and there are two rounds of betting left, which seems like a disaster. There may be a possible solution to that in that maybe you can add in some three/four streets of value hands in your range when you bet small, but it may be hard to balance three ranges, plus the three streets of value hands also don't want to face a flop check-raise and turn/river bets, and the four streets of value hands have to worry about being in their own pot sized bet-call range and possibly a 75% pot sized bet-call range. It's tough to spread around these hands into different ranges and seems better to check all two streets of value hands. I wouldn't bet JJ here against a TAG or LAG or tight-passive player, only possibly against a loose-passive player.

The difference between QJs and QTs is negligible, while the difference between QTs and JJ is extreme, and the difference between JJ and TT is extreme also.

---

SECTION 3: FIVE RANGES TO BALANCE

I hope Matthew Janda replies also. Let's try thinking about using two different bet sizings. One can be pot sized with 88/66/AQo/Bluffs, and the other can be 75% pot with AQs/KQs/Bluffs. AQ can be grouped up with 88/66 to purposely weaken the pot sized bet-calling range, and also at the same time be grouped up with KQs to purposely strengthen the 75% pot sized bet-calling range. For the pot sized bet, considering that there are only 6 combos of 88/66, there is a certain maximum amount of AQ that we can bet and also let our range call down properly to a flop check-raise and turn/river bets. For the 75% pot bet, considering that there are only 3 combos of AQs, there is a certain maximum amount of KQs that we can bet and call down properly to a flop check-raise and turn/river bets.

What about this?
Starting range (125 combos): JJ-33,AQs-ATs,KTs+,QTs+,J9s+,T9s,98s,87s,76s,65s,54s,AQo+
Pot sized bet-call range (15 combos): 88,66,AQo
Pot sized bet-fold range (15 combos): J9s+,T9s,5h4h,5s4s,5c4c
Pot sized total bet range (30 combos): 88,66,J9s+,T9s,5h4h,5s4s,5c4c,AQo
75% pot sized bet-call range (6 combos): AQs,KQs
75% pot sized bet-fold range (5 combos): KTs,5d4d
75% pot sized total bet range (11 combos): AQs,KQs,KTs,5d4d
Check range (84 combos): JJ-99,77,55-33,AJs-ATs,KJs,QTs+,98s,87s,76s,65s,AKo

To get both of my bet-fold ranges I took my starting range and removed all 21 bet-call combos to see what the rest of the range looked like. Then I found the weakest 20 combos, which I then split into my pot sized bet-fold range and my 75% pot sized bet-fold range. If I'm making a big pot with my bluffs, I'd prefer to have JTs than KTs.

The pot sized betting range includes 88/66, which can bet-call the flop and then call turn/river bets. The half pot sized betting range includes AQs, which can bet-call the flop and then call the turn/river bets most of the time. AQs is weaker than 88/66, but maybe the smaller bet size increases the chances that MP can check-raise bluff. I wonder if some 88/66 combos should go into the 75% pot betting range, but there are only six combos of 88/66 available.

If the flop pot size is $9.50 (9.5 big blinds) and hero bets $9.50 and faces a check min-raise of $19.00, hero must defend at least 50% of the time to it. Pot / (Pot + Bet) is the formula. $19.00 / ($19.00 + $19.00)=50%. That means we balance our 15 bet-call combos with max 15 bet-fold combos. Then facing 2/3rd pot bets on the turn and river, we defend at least 60% of our range on the turn (88, 66, 3 of the 9 AQo combos) and then at least 60% of our range on the river (88, 66).

If the flop pot size is $9.50 (9.5 big blinds) and hero bets $7.12 and faces a check min-raise of $14.26, hero must defend at least 54% of the time to it. Pot / (Pot + Bet) is the formula. $16.62 / ($16.62 + $14.26)=54%. That means we balance our 6 bet-call combos with max 5 bet-fold combos. Then facing 2/3rd pot bets on the turn and river, we defend at least 60% of our range on the turn (AQs, 1 combos of KQs) and then at least 60% of our range on the river (2 combos of AQs).

The AQ hands in the pot sized bet-call range should probably actually be 3 AQs combos and 3 AQo combos, and then the other 6 AQo combos (which are weaker than AQs in general) should be in the 75% pot bet-call range, but it's not a huge deal and I don't feel like editing that into the ranges right now.

Maybe the smaller bet size should be 50% pot. If I get check-raised and call turn/river bets, the pot will be smaller and I'll be more comfortable calling with AQ. Opponent is more likely to raise a 50% pot bet than a 75% pot bet I think. But, when I am triple barreling with AQ/KQs, I am not afraid. I am only afraid if I face a check-raise.

What do you think of this strategy for two bet sizings? Good luck, Yojimgari

My text files were based on the same idea about dividing a range into several groups of combos (also seen in some of Matt's videos). I'd pick a pre-flop raiser and caller (e.g. CO and BUT) and list their ranges, generate a random flop, and start counting combos (using Equilab). I'd list these in Notepad, and then work out what sort of frequencies I had for betting, check-raising etc, and ask questions like "Am I check-folding too often? If so, what do I need to do about it?" and "Is this hand likely to be able to value-bet for three streets?" and "What hands is villain calling on the flop?" or "What are good/bad turn cards for my range?"

I don't think I've written a full review of the book, but I rate it very highly, despite several issues I have with it. Mostly I credit Janda's book for taking my poker thinking to the next level. I used to be one of those typical ABC newbies that just had a standard thought process based on the precise hand I was holding. e.g. "I have TPTK, and this is a wet flop, so I should bet big to charge the draws" or "I have a flush draw, so I should bet". Matt's book helped me to think more in terms of my entire range, what my aim with each combo might be, and how I should plan for multiple streets of action such that I maximise EV, without allowing an opponent to easily exploit me.
The book is far from perfect, but I think it's pretty much required reading for anyone that wants to beat 50NL+ in 2015, because players are thinking on a much deeper strategic level than they used to. Many of the older, less "mathy" poker books are so outdated in comparison.

The exercises you do are exactly same as the exercises I do! :-)

I could explain the exercises in more detail here but I am waiting for somebody to reply to my previous two posts. If I explain in more detail it will make a very long post as well. I want to discuss this with you later. Besides generating random flops for various raisers and callers and choosing to be hero or villain, I also do these type of exercises for the actual hands I play. I review my least profitable 0.5% of hands each session in great detail, but since I go in super detail with the reviews, I do 0.25% of hands now. Like reviewing my least profitable 2 hands in a 660 hands session. Some hands (such as AA vs KK preflop) require little to no analysis though. I have a text file which lists the random flop exercises that I have done for various positions/situations, but what I need to do more of is turn/river analysis. Because maybe the flop seems okay but then I find out that I'm not in strong enough shape on the turn/river. Becoming a strong player takes years of hard work and the proper type of work. I haven't found anybody who has done this type of analysis.

Please respond to my two previous posts with your ranges/bet sizes and what you think of my ranges/bet sizes. What games/stakes do you play? Please add me on Skype, I am Yojimgari.

The book is great and I learned a lot and took some good notes. The sample hands at the end I think, in one way, was the weakest section since some of the advice seems to contradict what the author has recommend earlier in the book and sometimes even varies in the same hand from street to street. I think there should be a second edition with a revised sample hands section, also with hands between the blinds, which is a common situation. On the other hand, are there any other NL cash game strategy books that have this type of sample hand section that lists the various lines and ranges? If not then maybe this is the best sample hand section in any poker book that I've read!

What do you think of the Will Tipton books, The Intelligent Poker Player, and The Mathematics Of Poker?

I think the book is required reading, but I'd read it after reading some more "basic" texts such as Professional No Limit Hold'em Volume 1. It is probably the 9th book I'd read as a beginner. I consider 15 books at the moment to be required reading for NL cash game players. Good luck, Yojimgari

I'm afraid I don't have the time or the inclination to do this, and I have too many Skype contacts already.
I looked over your ranges and they looked pretty decent. Nothing jumped out as obviously wrong. For really in-depth range analysis, a study group or a coach is recommended. Good luck with your poker studies!

Hey I'm not sure if those ranges/posts are aimed at my specifically or just for whoever would like to chime in, but I unfortunately don't have the time to read a really long post and give an adequate response. I've learned quick answers to long questions or very specific ranges usually don't help.

If you have a more specific question I'll be glad to answer.

That said if you want a poker buddy PM me your skype screen name (and anyone else as well) and the stakes you play and I'll try to match you up with someone who I think might be a good fit. Just know this might take a while though.

"So if we are the one 3-betting 6.9 percent of the time, then we should defend with 2.76 percent of our total hands"

How come it's not this: "then we should defend with 2.76-3.17 percent of our total hands"

6.9 *.40 = 2.76
6.9 *.46 = 3.17

??

I'm not sure what page you're on, but what you wrote seems fine if you only defend by 5-betting or jamming.

In reality now I'd recommend defending against 4-bet by calling much more often than 5-betting (especially since people often 4-bet too small), but that's a harder strategy to implement. If you call rather than jam vs 4-bets know you'll of course have to defend more often.

Also be aware there are probably lots of mixed strats pre-flop, so don't sweat too much over what line to take if both lines seem close.

On page 46 it mentions if a player doesn't defend at least 15.2 percent of their opening range when facing a 3bet then 5bet, then you can profitably 5bet them with pocket pairs and suited aces.


I don't understand where the pocket pairs and suited aces come in. can u give an example of this?

(sorry if this is a basic question that's explained later, maybe I should just read more and come back to this. But I'll see what your answer is and maybe adjust my freuqncy for asking questions before I've read the whole book)

Right now I'm at Part 4, and I remember reading in book Matt saying how we will build information on some concepts and at the end of the book they will become clear.

So my question is, should I start to incorporate strategy pieces from the book after each part, or is it recommended to read the book completely, and then start incorporating all of this?

On pg 46 it says "a raise first in of 15 percent is around what many players use for an UTG open and the inability to 3bet and 5bet AKo for value against an UTG open in six max is consistent with the theory from "maximum 3betting ranges" starting on page 41"

But how come when I go to the chart on page 42 it shows AKo in the "value component of 3betting range"?

To my mind a value hand is one which can be called by worse, but that doesn't mean it can always call when re-raised.

For example, we 3bet AKo and expect to get called by AQ so we are betting for value. But when EP raises back at us, his range is so strong (cos all the hands we beat are calling, not raising) that we can't call.

I think the river is the easiest scenario to see this at work, we bet say top pair top kicker for value, expecting to be called by hands with a worse kicker. We then get raised, so we fold as we believe his weakest hand he raises our bet with is two pair or better.

Everyone's different. I'd personally take a note of what you're confused on or don't understand and move on, but some people can't stand to do that. I think that's more efficient though as stuff often makes sense on its own as you keep going.