Yes that is 13.9%. Sorry to waste your guys time. My brain isn't working today.

He's saying that they've done studies and 13.9% of the time it works every time.

Is this book of janda available in french yet ?
Thx

I just finished Poker's 1% and just ordered this book as well as Tipton's. I plan to read both, is there any benefit to starting with one before the other?

Sub for later
Matt love the work you put in!!!
much respect!!!!!!

Page 70
"We expect the big blind will on average lose 5.5 big blinds when the weakest 3-bet bluff in his range is called."

Under what criteria we assume this number (5.5)?

So I'm currently reading this. Great book thus far. My question is will trying to implement this get me killed in my 1/2 game? The disclaimer at the beginning by Mason and David has me concerned about trying to implement this.

I'm only about 1/3rd through the book, but it is mostly written as if you are playing against a very, very good opponent. Therefore, you would not want to directly implement the ranges and strategy against a 1/2 game (the way you say it, I assume this is live) full of bad fish.

What I think is most instructive from a book like this is to compare the strategy to your fishy opponents. It will help make it obvious where they are playing exploitably because they are not similar to the more unexploitable style in the book. For a very obvious example, is old man Jimmy raising enough bluffs relative to his value raises to make you indifferent to continuing against his raise? Of course not, old man Jimmy only raises for strict value. So we can exploit that by folding almost everything to his flop raises, and by then trying to determine if these bluff raise hands go into his fold to cbet range (so we cbet more) or if they go into his calling range (so we double barrel more against a weak wide range.

Thanks for the response, I appreciate it. I think that you're definitely right, the value at my level is looking for ways to exploit those who deviate from the style that Janda outlines.

Just wanted to quickly stop by and say while I know I've mostly been neglecting this thread for the past month or two I will have some free time next week and try to answer any remaining questions. If I miss a question that hasn't already been answered just PM me with the post number and I'll get to it.

Sorry guys, not a native english speaker here...

The word "felt" as a verb (seems like a present tense) comes often in the book but i can't find a translation that makes senses...

example: p. 140 ->" 5. Our opponent is usually required to felt at least 20% of his flop betting range. If he felts less than this, it will be profitable for us ro recklessly bluff."

Felt = defend ?

Thanks in advance.

I think that he essentially means go all in with 20% of his flop betting range.

Usually means stacking off (felt is the table covering so going to the felt means all your chips have gone - down to the felt)

Much appreciated guys, thanks !

I think it'd be pretty hard to implement strategies here and get "killed" in a 1/2 game unless the rake is crazy.

I'd still probably implement most of the strategies recommended in the book (bluff raise lots of flops, 3-bet a lot PF, be willing to overbet when the opponent's range is capped, etc) but I think you'd want to be careful about it and really keep in mind who you're playing against. For example live there may be some players that will fold 100% of their range to a river overbet when they can only have top-pair whereas other players may call 100% as they don't want to feel like they're being pushed around and they also just in general refuse to fold top-pair.

It's just a number made up when trying to model the situation. It was made back when people were folding wayyyyyyyyyy too much to 3-bets online in certain positions (at least at SSNL and MSNL).

In reality if your worse 3-bet "bluff" get called in any position I would expect your EV to be a lot higher than 5.5BB. In fact it'd probably be way, way higher, but this wasn't as well understood when the book was written. One of the reasons why 3-betting hands like AXs is so profitable, for example, is your 3-betting range is stronger than his 3-bet calling range so even when you whiff you can likely make a profitable with ATC on most board textures (though it depends on lots of stuff, like your position, his position, and your 3-bet sizing).

Also, expect your post-flop EV to increase as people call 3-bets with wider ranges, as they do now. It's much easier to defend post-flop when you fold 60% of the time to a 3-bet pre-flop than if you only fold 30% of the time.

I'm a bit confused what you're asking, but I'd just stick with this. When you're betting or raising with a polarized range on the flop (and you have the stack depth that allows you to bet 2/3 of the pot so), you want significantly more bluffs than value bets on the flop. Maybe 3 bluffs for every 2 value bets or so. On the turn, you want around 1 bluff for 1 value bet. On the river, you want a lot more value bets than bluffs.

That's it. NLHE situations do NOT model perfectly, and you won't always be using these ratios, especially as your betting range gets less polarized or you don't have sufficient stack depth to make reasonable sized bets (like in tournies). But if you do find you're raising 9 sets on the flop and only 5 blufs, then something is probably wrong. If you're betting 30 top-pair on the turn and only 12 gut-shots, something is probably wrong. That's what the model tells us and that's what I'd keep in mind. I wouldn't worry about the exact math from the models.

Those were good times, though I don't think that was as far back as 2008 was it?

I don't think one book replaces the other.

Yup, you got it.

Your equation makes it seem like you win 201.5BB overall for the hand 45% of the time, but you don't. You're counting your own starting stack as money won. So if you stack your opponent you'll only win 100 + 1 + 0.5 = 101.5BB (his stack and the antes).

I like Snowie a lot but I wouldn't put a lot of stock in how it rates you as a player, especially if you play against opponents who will make bet-sizes and take lines that Snowie would not (which almost certainly happens at lower limits).

I think Snowie will give very tricky missed strats pretty often when it just doesn't know what to do. That says, when it does recommend a mixed strat it should tell you that a mixed strat likely does exist there or the EV of two lines is very close.

SB vs BB ranges are a mess in general and very tricky.

More emphasis on robust equity, less emphasis on non-robust equity,I'd be more inclined to use multiple 3-bet sizings pre-flop, and I'd probably check a bit more frequently post-flop (especially on certain board textures).

That said the overall change to my strategy would probably be a lot less than people would expect. The same hands that 3-bet well for 100BB usually will 3-bet well for 1000BB too.

Thanks to everyone who commented about the book and also to everyone that helped other people answer their questions.

I tried to answer everything but if I did miss a question feel free to PM me and I'll try to answer it.

Hi,Janda,
I have two question about Snowie want to ask you.
1.
Do you agree with Snowie add a lot calling range in sb pre-flop range,I do not understand why ,can you explain to me.
2.
Snowie use frequency to play a hand .i mean,for example ,Snowie suggest open 24 percent QJo on the UTG 6max,and other post-flop frequency.how do I go to apply it ,use a random number generator?
Other GTO software have same practical use problem,such as simple postflop.
I think it is too hard to remember and use GTO range to play poker.especially post-flop range.
can your give me some your opinion.