I was reading this book a few months ago but life got in the way (they fired our whole office) but at least now I have more time to study Janda.

I'm pretty much going to neglect the preflop section which is advised throughout this thread and I'll read the other sections, please let me know if there's anything wrong with this plan or any super important parts in the preflop section. Thanks again.

The hand ranges and bet-sizes given in the pre-flop section might be sub-optimal, but I don't recall the strategic ideas being all that bad. Indeed, it's kind of necessary to understand them so that the rest of the book makes sense.

Even preflop section aint that bad...it gives you some logic and basic math to get decent ranges for yourself

Ok thanks for the advice. I'll still try and take in some of the preflop concepts but I'll just be aware it's not the be all end all.

Really like this book, only made it to Turn play before studies interrupted but will be sure to pick it up again over the summer

Is there any truth to this or is this guy a troll or just confused?

Why is he saying that Matthew Janda's book isn't about GTO? "If you want to learn about "balance" as in mixing up your ranges to not very easily be exploited, Jandas book is very good." Isn't that exactly what GTO is?

I'm still wrapping my head around GTO but was super confused about that post by someone in another thread. He didn't respond to my reply (Mainly because this forum is pretty stupid in that it won't send notifications for when you're quoted) so maybe someone else can address it here.

Probably better off PMing him but my guess is he thinks some of the models don't accurately represent how GTO poker is actually played. It is probably a better description to say my book deals with "poker theory" than "GTO poker," but again you probably want to PM him to know exactly what he meant.

Yeah that's a good idea I'm apparently ******ed and didn't think of that. Thanks.

That's a common misconception.
With regard to poker, being "balanced" doesn't automatically make you optimal, and being optimal doesn't always require balance. Poker isn't the same as rock, paper, scissors. It's much more complicated and dynamic.
Ludicrous example to illustrate the point: A villain that only plays AA and 22 and plays them exactly the same way is "balanced", but he's far from optimal.

I am not a troll. I may be confused.

What i meant is the MDF does very little to find equilibrium except for on the river. If you are going to backwards induct and use that for turn, flop and preflop you may get into trouble and it certainly wont get close to solving poker.

I just don't think you should take "avoid getting pummeled by ATC bluffs" as being at equilibrium (or even close to it possibly).

With that said i think the book is very good and if you are looking for a good poker theory book you should buy it. If you want a game theory book (on poker) there's other more suitable options.

I don't think you're a troll or confused at all and I mostly agree with what you've said.

The only thing I disagree with is the book is pretty explicit about the whole "when it is or isn't ok to let your opponent make a +EV bet with ATC." It definitely doesn't imply that the norm is to never allow the opponent to make a +EV bet with ATC, but you should never let him make a +EV raise with ATC. Check-folding in CO vs BTN or BB vs BTN so that the player in position can make a +EV bet with ATC on many board textures is fine.

Would you say you're happy with the preflop hand ranges, and is there an updated version of the preflop hand chart?

The pre-flop ranges are the only thing I'm really unhappy with in the book (at least off the top of my head). They do not work well once you play opponents not afraid to call 3-bets and 4-bets.

I will never make another pre-flop hand chart as there are too many mixed strategies and ranges change pretty drastically (especially when calling from the BB) against different sized openings.

If you want to post a specific range you're confused about then I'd be glad to give you feedback on it.

Mathew, grats on a wonderful and insightful piece of work.

Would you say that this book was simply to develope ones' way of thinking, gearing it
toward a GTO strategy?

You have definitely filled in a few of the blanks in my thought patterns anyway, by the way, do you have any other publications on the way?

Do you reccommend any publications you think may tie into AoNLHE that would be worth the read?

Thanks

P.s good on you for sticking around still answering posters questions, 2 years ago in May the first post was written.

Hi Matt
what your next book is about? I saw on twoplustwo magazine that you will submit a new book.

This is news to me. Link?

I think this book is pretty good at showing you when there's a contradiction in your thought process and how there are pretty clear counter-strategies to how players used to play (continuation betting too much, not check-calling enough, not overbetting, etc).

True GTO poker is kinda a cluster of mixed strats and some really non-intuitive lines. I don't think there's any book or program that really helps you get really close GTO, instead you just improve through videos, books, playing, using programs (I like PokerSnowie others like CREV though), etc, and all that stuff eventually helps you play closer to theoretically correct.

Mason mentioned it in the 'publishers note' during the May edition of the magazine:

http://www.twoplustwo.com/magazine/issue125/

Oh ok, I didn't know he talked about that.

So, summer started for me about 3 weeks ago and I kind of had writer's bug so I wrote down some major stuff I'd been thinking about with regards to poker for the last year or so. Basically, I wanted to address some stuff that I think I learned since Applications got published as well as address all the questions I'd been asked since then.

I sent Mason four sections for a potential new book to ask him what he thought about them (about 12,000 words total). I was hoping to get his feedback for whether he thought it was worth pursuing if I thought I could write an entire book of that quality. It took me a bit under a week to write it and is absolutely nowhere near an entire manuscript.

Mason liked the material and 2+2 sent me a contract which I'm going to sign, but as of right now I'm not doing any writing and am instead focusing nearly all my poker time on playing (I'm still making some videos for CardRunners as I probably can't make many videos during the school year). I'm also planning play in the main event at the WSOP as well as a few other random tournaments from June to July and will likely have my PC while I'm in Vegas so I'll be playing some online poker there too. I just talked to Mason today explaining I'm planning to just keep playing and don't think I'll even have a book done (if I do write it) in under a year.

So, I'm really not positive I'm going to write another book as write now I mainly just want to play. I will only write another book if I think it can be very practical with tons of hand examples from me actually playing. So it will be sort of the opposite of Applications where I wrote almost all of it after thinking internet poker was banned. If I do write this book I'd like it to include many hand examples that were actually played by me and use these hands to illustrate concepts rather than rely on math.

Anyways, so the new "book" only has about a week's worth of writing from me, I've probably only written 1/4 or so of the total material, it hasn't been edited yet (though I think when Mason went over the material he did make some edits he plans to send to me once I sign the contract), and I don't plan on doing any more writing till I've played a lot more hands. Mason knows this and I'm planning on talking to him and David while I'm in Vegas for the main event and we'll go from there. I did really enjoy writing Applications and working with 2+2, but I think it's super important I play a lot before writing the next book and I won't write another book if the content isn't there.

EDIT: If I find out the content for the book isn't there I'll probably release what I wrote as articles for 2+2, so at the very least there should be some pretty high quality articles coming out even if a book doesn't get produced.

Can you comment briefly on why this is the case? Or what adjustments you would make versus opponents who are unafraid to call 3bets and 4bets?

This isn't really something I can give a quick answer to. I'm not trying to avoid the question it's just something that needs like a 30 page response rather than a 3 paragraph one.

If I HAD to give a one or two sentence response it'd be "If you are 3-betting a size that allows your opponent to call at a high frequency then you are better off only 3-betting hands that do well in 3-bet pots post-flop. Some of the hands I was 3-betting before do not do well in 3-bet pots."

Would be great if you did bring out another book and if you're unable to the idea of releasing what you've already written as articles on 2+2 would also be pretty damn fine.

Anyway, I have a question that's not really related to your book (Which I bought on release back in the day) but to Pokersnowie so I'll understand if you don't reply. Basically I've just finally got around to downloading the trial of Snowie and before delving deeply into it and making possible adjustments to my game I've been looking around the forum for positive stories about the improvement it has had on others' games. To be honest, I'm struggling to find any. Which area of Snowie do you feel provides the best benefit?

I've been wondering whether to start trying to apply some of the preflop and postflop ranges that Snowie recommends. I've been surprised at some of the ranges it uses, for example it doesn't call much on the button versus a min raise in middle position. During my last couple of sessions I've saved a couple of hands from each session from certain spots and then input them manually into Snowie to see exactly what it does in these spots and have wondered whether it's worthwhile looking to apply the Snowie advice but I'm worried it could have a negative impact on my game. I should add that I only play 25nl (FR) these days with a decent winrate. I understand that some of Snowie's river advice will be bad for these stakes as it seems to advocate calls in spots where villains just aren't bluffing enough for a call to be worthwhile.

Thanks

This is the kind of stuff I'd want to address if I wrote a new book, but I also don't think I could do a good job addressing it unless I've played a bunch of poker at some different limits. Which is why I won't write another book even if I think the content is there unless I've gotten a lot of play time in, and with school (I'm in podiatric medical school studying to be a footsmith) that may not be possible or it may just take several years.

To try to give you some guidance to your Snowie question, I think Snowie is really good at a couple things:

#1) Snowie shows you to emphasize making the pot bigger (i.e. raising) with strong hands, even if calling is profitable. So you may see Snowie raise something like 4h5h on a Jc6h5d board even when calling would be +EV.

#2) Snowie shows you how frequently you should check-call when you're OOP as a CO/MP/UTG opener. People tend to CB hands like KJ on a K73 board way too much when check-calling is superior.

#3) Snowie's really good at grasping how important it is to call expecting to lose since Snowie is a non-emotional robot. In other words, most people struggle to call 1/2 PSB on the river when they expect to lose even when calling is +EV. No one likes calling a $50 bet into a $100 pot on the river expecting to lose 70% of the time, but the call is +EV. But it's hard to do in practice (at least for me, I always feel like I have to force myself to do it) because no one likes calling expecting to be beat. But that's the correct way to play.

#4) Snowie's pre-flop advice I think is overall very good. It seems to still struggle with SB vs BB play (especially post-flop), but for the most part it's advice seems very solid.


The other stuff Snowie is useful for, but requires more work:

#1) Snowie will only use one bet-sizing in a spot, but it will estimate the EV of another bet size. So I'm going to make up a spot (so I'm not sure Snowie says that here, but you'll get the idea). Let's say I open to 2.7BB in the button and the BB calls. The flop comes Qh6c2h. I think the only strong hands the BB can have here are 66, 22, and Q6s as AQ, Q6o, and Q2, aren't in the BB's range.

Here Snowie might recommend 1/2 PSB if it can only pick one bet sizing with it's whole range. But I'll say to myself "Wtf mate, if BB is like never raising here, wouldn't it be more effective to bet bigger with something 22 since I'll make more money from his flush draws and queens and I'm never behind and basically never getting raised if I bet smaller?" So I'll then check the EV of a bigger bet with 22, and behold Snowie might show me that the EV of betting big with 22 is significantly higher than betting 1/2 PSB. BUT if Snowie can only either bet 1 PSB or 1/2 PSB with its whole range, it will choose 1/2 PSB because it doesn't want to get too cray cray making 1 PSB with hands like 77-99, Q8s, etc as betting that big with those hands is likely ineffective.

So Snowie is useful IMO for doing this type of exploring, but you have to know what you're looking for and understand why it's likely doing what it's doing. If you just randomly look at spots trying to find patterns I think it's a lot harder than if you already have some grasp of how you think things should work in theory and then looking at Snowie to try to confirm it.

#2) Finding spots post-flop where Snowie is still struggling very hard to play OOP vs raises. If Snowie is folding enough to let a raiser auto-profit ATC, then besides showing you the flaws in Snowie it's likely showing you a spot where in practice you can raise pretty aggressively since playing OOP there is so hard. I've seen this a lot blind vs blind. I'd look to Snowie for help as playing in the SB, find out the BB can profitably raise any two cards against a SB continuation bet, and then say "Well, that didn't really help me learn how to play the small blind here, but it at least it confirmed just how much it sucked to get raised by the big blind on this flop. I guess I'll just raise the big blind more here." I personally find this pretty useful.

+1 on any new stuff by Janda being awesome!

Thanks for the detailed reply Matthew.