I would just plug in what you'd actually do, then get a feel for how bad/unbalanced your ranges are (you'll probably realize they're really bad if you've never done it before). Then I'd just slowly go go about improving them, and keep in mind the initial problems you find with your ranges are likely leaks other players at your stake have right now.

There unfortunately aren't any shortcuts or ways to know if you're right. I'd strongly recommend making sure your opponent's flop bets aren't too profitable (especially if you're often checking to him on the flop).

I used exclusively Flopzilla when making the book.

I'm still working through the book so maybe I will read about it in an upcoming chapter but with regard to the micros... how should I approach taking this optimal game strategy and tweak it for the micros?

+1, eagerly waiting for my own copy but if there are known mistakes it would be pretty handy to have them all in one place.

Your blog would most likely be better and easier to find imo. At least compared to posting randomly in this thread. In which case it would be better to edit the OP but only a mod can do that (a while after posting).

Question on preflop hand chart: It recommends that Utg 4 bet range would be AA, 98s,87s,76s. So if i understanding correctly you should just choose just one of theese s.conectors because if you choose to use this exact hole range which is 1.4 % then only 0,5%(AA) could call 5 bet and its only ~35percent and we know we need that at least 54-60% of our range could call 5bet.

The hand chart was just to give you a general understanding of pre-flop play and isn't meant to be strictly followed. It also gets less effective as people stop playing a "re-raise or fold" game, as they have now at the higher limits.

So let's stick with UTG opening and getting 3-bet in the CO to showcase why pre-flop is impossible to solve. We have a few options of hands we can 4-bet "for value."

1) Pocket Aces -- This hand is obvious since it's the best possible hand, but it may be so strong we want to slowplay it since we're not particularly vulnerable to being outdrawn on the flop.

2) Pocket Kings -- This hand doesn't particularly love giving free flops to the opponent when he 3-bet bluff AXs, but it will not work very well as a 4-bet if the opponent is mostly just 3-betting AA/KK/AKs for value. Yet it's probably a good 4-bet if the opponent is 3-betting AA-QQ/AK and a bunch of bluffs.

3) Pocket Queens -- Very vulnerable to giving free flops to the opponent's 3-bet bluffs (since many will have an ace or king in them), but not strong enough to 4-bet effectively for value.

4) Ace-King -- This hand doesn't want to give free flops to our opponent when he was 3-bet bluffing, but if we 4-bet too many AK our opponent can effectively play against us on boards which don't have an A or K. It also sucks when we get 5-bet. Yet calling allows us to get outflopped or bluffed off the best hand.

To top that off, see my previous post about now emphasizing higher equity hands rather than more robust equity hands. It's really hard to say what's optimal here (i.e., it's impossible) and it almost certainly is a super mixed strategy where some hands are being 4-bet sometimes, called sometimes, and folded others.

I do not think anyone knows that.

I've coached a lot of SSNL players specifically and it's very common for all to be winning at the same game at the same stake (say NL$200 on stars) and they disagree strongly with what exploitative lines are best. I tend to think the GTO lines are usually best at every stake. There are a few tendencies I keep in mind for SSNL though, and use these to help me make decisions I think are close in theory:

#1) There are some bet-sizes which I think get calls or folds a disproportional amount in certain spots, so it's effective to use these sizings to get your opponent to take the line you want.

#2) People in general won't bluff enough when you can be strong (I'm not counting continuation betting, most people do that too much). So if I open UTG and CB on a Qh 9h 4c flop, I'm going to fold to a flop raise more often than I should in theory since I don't think he'll bluff enough.

#3) I don't think most people are capable of passing up +EV betting spots with air. So if a reg opens in the CO and I call in the button, I don't think he'll check with air on a Kc 7h 2d flop because that's a flop he's used to being able to profitably bet with any two cards. So I get very suspicious of flop checks on these board, whereas on boards like 8h 6h 3c he'll almost certainly fold too much after checking since defending checks is very hard here.

Note the above exceptions don't even really result in me taking many lines which I think are that bad in theory. I usually disagree with students who try to take super exploitative lines, I just use the above 3 rules (and a few others) to help guide me in close spots. Also, this is mostly for SSNL games on tougher sites where I have the most experience, so it may be a bit different at different sites and stakes.

Could you please explain why you think some hands will employ a r/c/f mixed strategy? My own tinkering has led me to the opposite conclusion. I think we can agree that some r/c and c/f mixed strategies are almost certain to be optimal, but I can't think of a scenario where all 3 options should have equal EV against an optimal opponent.

The 3.5x open surely is significant?

If we're saying 3.5 to win 1.5 need to win 70%, and this leads us on to setting an UTG 3-bet value% as 2.76%

(page 40-43).

Then a 3x open to win 1.5 needs to win 60%, and this would lead to an UTG 3-bet value% as 3.88%

Or is the point, that thanks to this book, I can now calculate this 3bet% because of the theory explained in the book? Where as an hour ago, I had no idea where 3bet ranges come from and just copied the ranges parrot fashion?

Yep, that is spot on

An open to 3BB to win 1.5BB would need to work 66.7% of the time, not 60%.

I think you're better off making your own pre-flop ranges and tweaking them accordingly. If you haven't played around with your pre-flop ranges much, you're almost certainly opening the button too wide and folding too much to 3-bets. You'll want to fix this against good players and exploit weaker players who do that.

Well no one knows exactly what hands they are, but hands like AJ, 99, KQ, etc I could easily see sometimes calling, sometimes folding, and sometimes 4-betting in certain situations. Even if a hand won't do all 3 options (and again, I think some hands will but there's no way to know) there are many spots where you'll want to use 2 different options.

Which situations?

You open MP and CO 3-bets you seems reasonable.

Folding 99 in this situation seems reasonable?

It might. It depends on how you're defending (4-betting a lot compared to calling), his 3-bet sizing, how strong you think 99 is relative to other hands, etc. I also wasn't trying to say all AJ/KQ/99 must be 4-bet/called/folded some fraction of the time each, just that those hands might do that there. No one knows.

I see my maths error. Which translates to 3.1% 3bet required. Still, my point still stands, that with the correct theory we can tweak ranges more accurately, without the theory it's more of a guessing game.

ok this book is packed with information! I feel like this book will honestly be the next supersystems. ie the goto book of poker. I feel as though im relearning the game of poker. well done janda. with that being said, one can easily get overwhelemed. this is not a beginner book. and while I don't consider myself a newbie I find myself getting lost on many occasions. whats the best way you would recommend that we attack this book in order to fully grasp the content and concepts that you are trying to explain? im about 200 pages deep and I think I need to start over and reread already. (which I planned on doing anyway but still)

Hi Matt,

I've got just a small question. On page 61 in the second equation you wrote:

0.217 = (0.08)(0.86)+(0.20)(0.74)

Where do you get the 0.74 from ? I thought that would be the fraction of the time the small blind fold to the BU open. But then it should be 0.76 (16% 3bet and 8% call).

Thanks in advance.

-Chris

I have a question about calculating raises on the flop and on the turn - p.235,246,251.

When you calculate raising villain`s bet you make it f.e.:
he bets 12.5 in 25 and if we raise to 37.5 our sizing is 0.5 pot(so he has to defend 67%)
How is possible to calculate 12.5 as a call?
If we have a bluff we invest 37.5 for 37.5(not 25 for 50) and if he defends over 50%(not 67%) we have no desire to bluff.

After he bets 12.5 big blinds into a 25 big blind pot, the pot is 37.5 big blinds. If we raise to 37.5 big blinds, we're risking 37.5 big blinds to win 37.5 big blinds, so he'll need to call 50% of the time to prevent us from making an immediate profit.

Also, we may still bluff if he defends 67% of the time, as our bluffs will have equity.

Yeah you're right, but it won't change the final number in any significant way. Thanks for pointing it out though and I'll add that when I write up a list of all the discovered errors.

I'd just get the general idea of concepts and not worry about details.

#1) Attack button opens very aggressively.
#2) If you open the button wide, you'll have to call against 3-bets a lot or you can be exploited.
#3) Bluff a very lot on the flop, less on the turn, and not that much on the river.

etc etc.

So read the chapter summaries but don't worry about memorizing anything or getting caught up in details. Keep poker fun and you'll learn a ton just from playing, especially when playing very low limits.

Thanks for the response.
What I was refering was (example):
On p.246, villain bets 15 in 20 and you assume that to make it geometric we raise to 40 on the turn, then shove 50 in 100 on the river.

Hey Matt, great job with the book, i am just starting chapter 7 and it's been excellent so far. Especially the Math, something i'm not very good with, is explained very well.
Have a question from page 222, on the k97ss board.
Can you talk a bit about bluff check-raising J9s and T9s. Why are these good hands to bluff check-raise? I know they are slightly better than bare 2nd pairs because they can turn gutters but aren't we just for the most part folding out hands that we beat if we choose to use them as bluffs?
Thanks.

Hi Mickman,

I think check-raise bluffing hands are the hardest hands to feel confident about, because ideally I want a check-raise bluff to have some showdown value if the opponent checks back the flop as well as retain it's equity as a check-raise bluff. The hands that I would for sure want to check-raise if I knew my opponent would bet are gutshots, yet these hands also work well as continuation bet bluffs. So it's hard to determine which hands to CB and which hands to check-raise bluff.

I agree 9x hands seem pretty strong as check-raises here, and it's possible they should be check-called instead and something else check-raise bluffed. Or, maybe we should check-raise bluff a few 9x hands, but not very many, as the GTO strategy is almost certainly a mixed strategy here. Lastly, it may be possible check-raise 9x and still win at showdown unimproved if our opponent calls, as he'll have to call our check-raise with many hands which aren't very strong. It's very tough to say and I'm not sure what's correct here, but whatever you decide you should be check-raise bluffing these boards and that's something most people don't do (which leads to terribly imbalanced ranges).