Hey Danielz,

1. I'm not sure what you're asking here. Last I checked Snowie rarely calls in the SB, though it does limp sometimes. Limping in the SB is fine/good, it's just a more complex strategy than always opening or folding. I personally do use a limping range now too, but a lot of people I know don't just because never limping is a simpler strategy and people tend to fold in the BB too much to SB opens (as well as play poorly post-flop, as very wide range are hard to play).

2. I wouldn't worry at all about trying to play a mixed strategy at the perfect frequency. I honestly think Snowie has very very little idea whether QJo is a +EV open from UTG in 6-max (last I checked I think it folded it), so there's no way it knows whether it's a mixed strat or not and at what frequency it should be opened. I personally think the hand is too weak to play and would just always fold it.

I'm a firm believer if poker were solved and the solution given to everyone it'd do very little to impact the games (assuming no bots were made, that'd be the real risk). It'd be too hard to implement for close to 99% of players and just knowing the optimal line in some spots won't really help most players unless someone explains WHY it's optimal. And even then it'd probably take a lot of talent and hard work before these strategies could be implemented well, even if they're understood.

A good example of this would be checkers/chess. Checkers is solved and while chess isn't solved bots still player at a very very high level (from what I've been told, I don't like chess), yet even if I have access to the solutions from these games I'm still going to start out as a very bad checkers and chess player. Someone half decent at chess wouldn't have to worry about me beating them for a very, very long time even if somehow had access to an optimal chess bot and realistically a world class player would probably never have to worry about me beating them as I don't think an optimal bot would particularly help me improve so I'd just get continually outclassed by someone more talented and passionate about the game than me.

Hi!

I have a question regarding the theory in the book -defending vs cbets. Probably it was discussed earlier, sorry if it was.

someone cbets 5 bb to a 7bb pots. The book says that we need defend ~58% of the time (because bettor needs a fe of 42% risking 5 to win 7).
My question is shouldnt we add to the calculation his EQ if we call him? I mean if his bluffs has 10% of EQ , than he really risking 3.3bb (-5bb*0.9+12bb*0.1) to win 7bb so hero have to defend 68% of the time.
It seems a huge defend % at first glance.
I ask this because the 5bet allin was calculated in the same way (we included the EQ if get called).

thanks

You only defend that much if you think villain should not be able to profitably bet ATC. You will not likely defend this aggressively when a situation is very asymmetrical, such as when your opponent min-raises the button and you call in the BB (he has position on you, a stronger range, and lots of stack depth to work with). That's the minimum you'd need to defend to prevent villain from being able to profitably bet ATC, while you can't calculate it directly you'd have to defend a lot more if you didn't want your opponent to be able to profitably bet with a 10% equity hand (especially if the equity were robust, like a gutshot).

You can't convert equity into EV in any spot except on the river or when you're all-in. You saw equity calculated into the 5-bet equation because a player was all-in.

Hey Janda,
Just wanted to pass a long my thanks for the material you put out. Read this book numerous times and enjoy the videos you put out. Have helped my game tremendously ty!

thank you, I got it.

I apologize if this question is ignorant, but there is one topic that I have been having trouble wrapping me head around that is related to the question above. If we defend using the optimal defending frequency, aren't we making vil's value bets incredibly strong? I worry I am over calling against value hands. Thank you.

Thank you, Matthew ,sorry for my bad english ,actually i mean sometimes sb limp ，misuse a lot ,and ty for your reply , I got it.

If you defend at the optimal frequency in certain spots (let's say you defend very aggressively vs an opponent's flop raise) then yes his "value raises" will be very profitable, but that's the way it's supposed to be when two good players play against each other. It's really, really good to be holding a set and facing a flop bet, but sets are hard to make.

You have to remember very strong hands are hard to make. Optimal players are going to play very aggressively against a button open for example by constantly 3-betting, but there's not really too much the button can do with that information as you're not likely to be dealt a very strong hand in the button.

This is probably why Mason and David added some their thoughts to the beginning of Applications though, because they don't want people defending very aggressively against players who don't bluff much. If you play aggressively against opponents who aren't raising aggressively in spots when they should be, then you'll be losing money to these tight opponents that you don't need to.

Thanks, this means a lot.

Is there difference/benefit choosing PDF or ePub digital version on professionalpoker.com?

I will read on Android tablet and Windows laptop.

I decided on ePub and it's well presented single page widescreen on Android using Adobe's software.

Unfortunately clicking on footnotes is problematic. For example clicking on the 1 at the end of the first paragraph of "Hand signaling" opens up the footnote "Of course, ..." but when I click (Back) it goes to page 395 instead of page 15.

Does it happen also with the PDF version?

Still, I am very much looking forward to making sense of poker with it.

Hey Matt,
I love the book just want to give you many praises!!!
I also am a big fan of your work on Cardrunners.
Have you ever thought about doing a video series with poker Snowie???

I feel one could learn allot from it, if they could interpret the information correctly.
It seems like you and others talk about it allot in this thread.

Well anyway thanks for all the great resource's, and making a support thread for the book is fantastic!!!

Have a great holiday season!!!

Thinking of purchasing this book as a big fan of your work Matthew. One quick question and pardon me for being lazy - is the book mainly aimed at cash games and if so are the concepts easily translated into STT/MTT (which I play)?

Thanks in advance.

Cash Game

Glad you liked the book/videos

Yeah I'm currently making some CardRunners videos and I use Snowie in them. There was a talk once upon a time of doing some Snowie only series which may eventually happen but that's not what I'm working on at the moment.

Hi, Matthew!
I’m a newcomer in this forum. Your book is a great one for me. Thanks a lot for your work. I’ve been playing and studying NLHE from 2012 and only your book give me clear understanding of NLHE range concept. Now I strongly need your advice. Few days ago I analyzed one hand with my more experienced friends. I used your charts and equations to defend my solution, but they didn’t agree with me. Now I have to understand, I’m wrong applying concept from your great book or my friends make a mistake. It’s very important for my farther NLHE learning. Please, help me better understand your book.

NLHE zoom:
Preflop
UTG (100bb) open rise 3bb, range from charts (AA-33, AKo-AJo, KQo, AKs-ATs, KQs-KTs, QJs-QTs, JTs-J9s, T9s, 98s, 87s, 76s, 65s) 13,9%
BTN (100bb) 3-bet 10bb, range from charts (AA-KK, AJo, AQo, AKs, A5s-A4s,) 3,6%
Hero is BB (100bb) and call 9bb with AsKs, range from charts “UTG vs 3-bet OOP” (KK-TT, AKo-AQo, AKs-AQs, KQs) 5,1%
UTG fold
Flop (pot 23.5 bb) Kd 3h 5c
Hero bet 15bb, your assume we should bet 38,9% for value and have ratio 2/3 value/bluff, accordingly our modified range approx (AA, KhKs, KhKc, KsKc, AhKh, AsKs, AcKc, AdKh, AdKs, AdKc, AhKs, AhKc, AsKh, AsKc, AcKh, AcKs – 21 combo for value; QQ-TT, KQs – 22 combo for bluff) I think there is no combo for check-call and check-raise. Is it correct assumption?
BTN call 15bb, your assume BTN should defend 66,7% and his modified range approx (AA, KhKs, KhKc, KsKc, A4s, AhKh, AsKs, AcKc, Ad5d, Ah5h, KhQd, KhQs, KhQc, KsQd, KsQh, KsQc, KcQd, KcQh, KcQs – 27 combo) I think villain has no range for raise in this case, because slowplay is much better in 3-bet pot on this texture. May be some A5s-A4s fit for bluff – raise, but I’m not sure.
Turn (pot 53.5 bb) Kd 3h 5c 4s
Hero bet 30bb, your assume we should bet 75% for value and our range approx (AA, KhKs, KhKc, KsKc, AhKh, AsKs, AcKc, AdKh, AdKs, AdKc, AhKs, AhKc, AsKh, AsKc, AcKh, AcKs – 21 combo for value).
ВTN goes all-in 75bb.
I assume his range approx (AA, KhKs, KhKc, KsKc, AhKh, AsKs, AcKc, and maybe A2s)
Is BTN bluffing occasionally here?
Hero range vs BTN range – 27.58% vs 72.42% (without Villain’s bluffs)
Pot odds for call 45bb/(45bb+30bb+75bb)=30% it mean Hero should call all-in and have approx 0 EV in the distance.
If Hero have exactly AsKs he reduces chance to get KK for Villain and have 2 outs to beat AA.
In this case Hero have only 16.29% (without Villain’s bluffs). I feel Hero should call all-in. Where is my mistake?

yours faithfully, Alex

P.S. Sorry for my English, it’s not my native language.

Sorry, uncorrect pot odds.
Correct one is 45bb/(45bb+30bb+53.5bb+75bb)=22%
Is it call all-in anyway?

You don't want to get too crazy with models and trying to apply them to complex and detailed situations. For example why is BTN defending 66.7% of the time on the flop? That's probably a good/fair estimate, but it doesn't really address if you should be able to profitably defend ATC, how much he's calling relative to raising (which determines how often you get to see the turn if you're bluffing), etc

Anyways, theory and models don't really seem all that important for this specific spot. What bluffs do you think BTN can have here? If you can't find any bluffs that seem reasonable, then you should usually find a fold unless your hand is very strong (relative to his range) regardless of whether or not you're "folding too much that you can be exploited."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

One more thing worth pointing out is why is the AK a donk bet rather than a c/c? I'd personally think that the 3-bettor's range is more polarized than yours and I usually check to polarized ranges rather than donk into them. Let his bet his AXs or what have you on the flop rather than donk lead and push him off them. Keep in mind checking keeps villains range much wider than betting does and AK isn't really very vulnerable here and I don't think you get stacks in very often by betting without villain showing AK+.

Just wanted to check back in and say that this book is currently the best NLHE book that I have ever read. I'm a huge Ed Miller fan and credit him for elevating my game from below average to average, but this book has taken me to a new level. Excellent work.

Very glad to hear you're enjoying it and thanks for letting me know.

Matthew, thanks a lot for your answer. I’m really surprised by your considerateness. I’ve thought out your answer and grasp the core. May I ask you one last question (in this year)))? Hero play not optimal on the flop and the turn, but on the river his AKs has about 16-17% equity vs Villain range (without villains bluffs) and 22% pot odds to call all-in, furthermore Hero assume that frequently Villain would shove his AK for protection, because board texture on the turn became too coordinated. Should Hero call all-in from time to time for chop the pot and save ½ his stack (for example 1 call to 3 folds?

Best wishes for a pleasant and successful New Year!

I'd call as played but I would never play your hand this way.

I think the lesson to learn from this hand isn't really whether or not the turn is a call but rather why the flop donk bet is probably bad. Once you've got that I'd just move on and not let it bother you much.

GL to you in 2016 as well!

4-bet pre. Don't flat anything in the BB if you like money.

Matthew, I have read for the first time your book 2-3 months ago from now (imo, the best poker book) , I´m also reading the review, wich I think its great what you are doing. Im at page 60 #891, I cant find the article of the ranges for SB vs BB can u tell me where It is? thanks a lot!!

Im looking forward too see your vids at CR also as soon I finish here, I will ask u a few questions at the end of my journey if u dont mind