I think there is a calc mistake at p. 340, River Play.

When calculating the EV after betting, at the low end of the page, it says :

"... Our opponent will call 54.7% of the time but he only has us beat 15% of the time. This means 39.7% he will call and lose ... "

How we get 39.7%?

This it shouldn't be 0.547 * 0.85 = 46.495% ?

46.5% would be the % he will call and lose

Ignore this, I just confused myself, 39.7% is right.

Hello Janda, I purchased before 4 days PokerSnowie the Starter Plan. I am playing in Challenge Mode. I'd like to ask you some questions.

First of all what do you believe for Snowie's Preflop ranges, especially the defence in blinds, is it's strategy of calling so many hands especially vs 0.5 PSB from the BTN good in practice?

The way it plays certain hands it's kinda different from how I am used to. For example in AT6r board, CU vs BTN, it cbets OOP if I remember correctly AQo as well as AJo. Clearly these hands won't be good to be valuebet for 3 streets of value (Here I'd cbet for value OOP all hands AK and better). I can't understand the logic for this unless it wants to do it for 2 streets of value, but on another similar spot it just cbets AK and better... I mean in some analysis I've done with the theory I've read in your book on paper, Snowie plays very differently. And it uses a lot of mixed strategies, and if it won't, in many spots the CheckEV vs BetEV is similar if not equal which I find a little strange. Things are a little complicated...

The main problem is that I can't have access anymore to tools like Range Advice etc. so I can't see how it plays it's whole range in common spots. But I'd like to learn more about theory, do you think I should continue with Challenge Mode, keep notes (I already do) and by time I will get better even with the lack of the more advanced tools?

Before I buy it - is there still anything to gain from this book? Or is it possible to find superior material (beside videos) that are more relevant?

I can't honestly answer this without having watched and read most/all training material produced in the last 4 years. My guess is there is some content in the book not seen anywhere else or explained better in the book than in other places, but again it's really impossible for me to know.

I have no problem answering some Snowie questions and giving my thoughts on some not entirely book related stuff, but I can't do too much of it here or we'll get off topic. So just a heads up we have to be careful with that here.

CO vs BTN on an AT6r board, it's fine to CB a hand like AJ/AQ on the flop even if you aren't likely going to bet all three streets. FWIW, it's almost certainly fine to bet all three streets on some run outs. Say turn is a 9s (bringing a flush draw) and the river is an offsuit 2. Why wouldn't you bet all three streets with AQ there? Any hand that beats AQ is almost certainly going to raise on the flop or turn and you got an amazing river for range (your turn betting range is polarized so a river blank is fantastic).

If you start with betting AJ on a AT6r board and someone ask you "Are you betting all three streets?" the correct answer is "I can't see the future bro" (say this regardless of gender). It also depends on if you're capable of betting less than 50% of the pot, which Snowie is not. There's nothing theoretically wrong with betting 25% of the river when OOP but it's hard to implement.

Snowie in general is great for helping you understand patterns and making you think, but it's not an answer key. There are many, many spots where Snowie is clearly playing a suboptimal/easily exploitable strategy. For example, you may see it bet/fold 80%+ of it's river betting range to a 1 PSB raise. Doesn't mean the program isn't useful (I like it a lot), but it's not perfect and you'll have to decide whether you agree/disagree with certain lines and why.

It's very hard for me to advise you on how to improve without knowing your goals or skill level, which realistically would require me to talk with you or watch you play for a pretty long period of time. You'll just have to see what works for you and what you enjoy, but I do wish you the best of luck.

Thanks man, your point for how to use Snowie is really helpful on how to proceed. Also sorry for talking about off topic stuff here. Thanks again for your replys to all of my questions.

Hello Matt,

I'm curious what you think of these statements:

Let's assume that the action and the flop or turn gives us incentive to have a betting or raising range:

"Using a value range that bets or raises at 100% frequency, while only using mixed frequencies with draws as bluffs, will be close to optimal."

"Using a value range that bets or raises at mixed frequencies, while using mixed frequencies with draws as bluffs, will be closer to optimal."

----

I think the first statement will result in a strategy that's vulnerable to overbets when we check, while the second statement will result in a strategy that's not so vulnerable, but I'm open to opinions.

In case it's not clear, I'm attempting to debunk traditional value:bluff ratios. I think that these traditional value:bluff ratios can only get you so far before you must begin to use a mixed strategy.

Thanks.

@Bob, if you put a scenario into a solver, it doesn't even know what a value bet or a bluff is. It just computes a (close to) optimal strategy that maximises the EV of the entire range. This will inevitably lead to mixed frequencies for some made hands and draws, such that both "types" of hand will maximise EV. In addition, it wouldn't be logical to use pure strats for one type of hand, but mix the frequencies with another, because the concept of "value bet" and "bluff" is arbitrary in the first place.
You only have to play with Snowie or a solver for 20 minutes to realise there's a whole lot of mixing going on, and it can happen with hands right at the top of a range, right at the bottom, or somewhere in the middle.

The terms "value bet" and "bluff" are useful and will always be around in poker, but unless you are dealing with models where hands have 100% equity or 0% equity (or close to it) then these terms don't work particularly well. There isn't some threshold where a hand goes from becoming a bluff to a value bet.

For example, how much equity does a hand need to have on the flop to be a value bet? 49%? 51% 85%? And this isn't even touching on how robust the equity actually is, as the equity of some hands will drastically change based on whether they're called, raised, how big they raise, etc.

So when I hear those two statements, I get kind of confused and all I really think is "Ok I'm going to explain to this person why the terms 'value bet' and 'bluff' are far from perfect terms and make sure they understand why a bluffing:value betting or raising ratio really only works well when you're dealing with models or river play. Then maybe he'll clarify his question if I still didn't answer it."

And as our time traveling friend Arty McFly already explained (and I think it was your point too, in which case you're correct) it's very very common for there to be many mixed strategies in theory. So much to the point that I actually think if poker was solved and the solution was given to someone, 90%+ of poker players wouldn't actually be able to learn all that much from it (though the top few % of players would learn a tonnnnnnn from it).

Hello Mathew,

Would you consider once and awhile writing an article for the 2 plus 2 online magazine?

... on whatever topics strike your fancy?

( insert smiling face here )

Is there an audiobook for this?

Hey Matthew,

Thank you for writing such an excellent book. I have read through most chapters twice and often find myself going off on tangents solving frequencies for interesting situations (i.e. modifying bet size, stack depth, polarization %, etc.). This book has propelled my online cash game play from NL25 to NL100, so I can't thank you enough.

My issue is this: I am preparing for a large live tournament and feel the need to study/learn short stack theory. In your book you said : The little bit you have written about short stack play is good, but I want more. Do you have any video series or recommended material where I can receive the same/similar approach as Applications of No Limit Holdem to short stack play ?

Best Regards,
buwuwei

Unfortunately there is not (at least none that I'm aware of).

I take a really big medical exam in 2 weeks (APMLE Step 1), after that I should have some more free time to do some poker stuff. I do really want to write again, I just haven't had the time. Whether or not another (likely much shorter than Applications) book will be produced or just a series of articles I'm not sure. I also need to devote some time to CardRunners videos, as they've been super accommodating with how crappy my schedule has been as of late.

Glad to hear you liked the book and it helped you move up, great job.

I've done a lot of this stuff for CardRunnners recently. I think out of my last 15 videos or so, probably 10 have been more geared towards playing with less than 100BB (so more geared toward tourney play without taking into account ICM).

Hi all, I bought this great book for a fish like me who want to learn about poker… My English’s bad and even math, but so far it’s help a lot to understand a bit more of poker.

There concept where I’m stuck if you can help please, really appreciate.( I read almost all the posts, I saw some question but not the same with the same problem)


I try to understand wich side we have to calculate to be balanced because reading there is some calculation that I don’t understand and seems contradictory to me, at the end I will ask the questions, to give you the shoot, my main problem will be with the PART E Question 3.

One more time thanks for your help.



A) P99: Defending by calling

In the bottom we ca read

“For example, suppose our oppo bets 50% of the pot. This means bluff rate should be 33.3 % of the time” then P100 “ 0.5 / 1.5 = 33.3%
it’s mean that we have to defend 66.7 of the time to prevent oppo from being able to profitably bull any2

So far all ok


B) P103 Defendinb by calling

On the 2/3 of the book we can read

“For instance agains a normal 75% pot sized continuation bet, we should defend at least 57.1% to prenvent oppo from profitably betting the wors hand in his range”

if I put the calculation is normal
oppo bet 0.75 in pot 0.75 / 1.75 = 42.8% he will win, so we have to defend 57%

So far all ok


C) P106 Part Four: Facing a flop bet in position

“so the first question is, what is the end goal of our flop raising range ? well, our goal on the river should be to bet with a range consisting of the right ratio of value bet and bluff to make our oppo indifferent to calling with his mediocre strength hands”

as exemple in the book we take 20% the nuts wich will never loose and we suppose that we bet always the Size of the pot. This information can be used to determine what fraction of our hand should be bet on the flop, turn and river.
When we bet the river
Pot 1
Hero bet 1
New pot 2
hero put 1 to get 2 (1 divided 2 wich give 50%) 50% of bluff…wich we add to our 20% nuts so 20% plus 10% give us 30%

and if we work backward

Turn will be the same process
30%
Pot 1
Hero bet 1
50% of 30% is 15% new total 45%

and if we work backward


Flop will be the same process
45%
Pot 1
Hero bet 1
45% plus 50% bluff 22.5% wich give us 67.5%


At the end we bet 67.5% of our flop range.

So far all ok, I hope I get the point.


D) P111 Defending by raising facing a flop bet in position

In the top of the page there is the same exemple as part C but instead of 1psb it’s 0.5psb and here as well for me the calculation is ok.

20% are nuts if hero bet 0.5psb in pot 1 make 33% and then we do the 33% of 20nuts wich gave 6.66 and we work backward

“ The size of the bet relative to the size of the pot determines how often you bluff”
There is this sentence I want to be sure to understand… it will be my question2



E) P111 Defending by raising facing a flop bet in position
On the 2/3 of the page we can read.

“now let’s return to the previous situation where a bet sizing of 57% of the pot is going to be utilized on the turn and river. In this situation, if we bet 57% of the pot on the river, our oppo will risk 0.57 pot sized bets to win 1.57 pot sized bets. This requires 73% of our river bets to be values bets”

“ and when we bet the turn for 57% of the pot, our oppo once again risks 0.57 psb to win 1.57 pot sized bets when we bet he must effectively lose 73 percent of the time……”




Questions

1) on the exemple A
when is wrote This means bluff rate should be 33.3 % of the time
does it mean that 33% of the time they are bluff ? so if I bet 0.5psb mean 33.3% of my range are bluff ? if I bet 1psb mean 50% of my range are bluff ??



2) on part D
there is this sentence “ The size of the bet relative to the size of the pot determines how often you bluff” is like the question 1 if I don’t get wrong… but when you write the size of the bet doesn’t include if oppo call right ? it's when hero call or raise without the eventual call off oppo ?
Pot 1
Hero bet 1 so I’m 50% bluff
Villain call 1 here I’m 33% bluff


3) on Part E
I don’t understand how you get 73%
If as mentioned in the book we bet 57% of the pot

Pot 1
Hero bet 0.57
Calculation is 0.57 / 1.57 = 36% it’s make then 64% not 73%

But if we add the villain call
villain call 0.57
Pot 0.57 + 0.57 +1 = 2.14
then it’s work we have 0.57 / 2.14 “ 26.6% then 73%

So it seems that you add villain in the calcul and I don’t understand why ? or there is something else that I missed ? how you get your 73% ?



If I make the same calcul as Parte A but this time I’m not calling but betting and If I got the point, my size of the bet will tell how I bluff.

Exemple:
Pot 1
Hero bet 0.5psb
Means 0.5 /1.5 33% are the bluff from Hero and Vilain has to call 66% of the time to prevent Hero to bet any 2.


Is it right or in this case as well we have to add villain call in the calcul ? but then the calculation will change, see below
Pot 1
Hero bet 0.5
Villain call 0.5
0.5 / 2 = 25% So Hero need to win 25% of the time and 25% are my bluff, and villain has to call 75% of the time to prevent hero to bet any 2

If the below doesn't answer your question, then it'd help me a lot if you can condense what you're asking. It's a bit difficult to keep track of everything in this post.

Question 1: If you bet 1 PSB, your opponent will risk 1 PSB to win 2PSB. So on the river, you need to be only bluffing 33.3% of the time when you bet 1 PSB. If you bet 0.5 PSB on the river, you need to be bluffing 25% of the time.

Question 2: If you are trying to play GTO, on the river you'll look at your bet size to determine what percentage or your river bets should be bluffs. If you're playing exploitative, you'll look to see how often your opponent calls to determine if you bluff. For example, an optimal player will make sure his river betting range consists of 33.3% bluffs when betting 1 PSB on the river. But a very exploitative player won't care much about his own frequencies, she'll just bluff if she thinks villain will call 1 PSB less than 50% of the time and will never bluff is she thinks villain calls more than 50% of the time.

Let me know if this clears up what you were confused about. If not I'll try to address the rest.

Thank you Matthew for your answer i understand better the got and exploitative, there is 1 concept i don't understand i will try to condense. this is the concept you explain starting page 106 to 111.

if i resume what you wrote
GTO:
For example, an optimal player will make sure his river betting range consists of 33.3% bluffs when betting 1 PSB on the river
If i bet 1psb river, i will have 33% river range bluff.


My question si why on the page 106 to 111 when we bet 1psb we don't add 33% bluff to our 20% nuts which give us 26.66% and then turn 33% from 26.66 and so on. But you add 50% bluff ? 2 for 1 ?

So once, for 1PSB we have 33% bluffs river betting range
But here
For 1psb bet river you take another calculation with the 50% (when we bet river, our opponent is getting offered 2-to-1





Now if i take the example you made From P 106 to 111 to bet with a range "consisting of the right ratio of value bets and bluffs to make oppo indifferent to calling with his mediocre stregth hands
Suppos ou bet will always bet the size of the pot, Furthermore, suppose our range on the flop consists of two types of hands, the nuts, which occur 20% and bluff which occurs 80%. This information ca be used to determine what fraction of our hands should be bet on the flop, turn, and river

when we bet the river, our oppo is getting offereded 2 to 1 odds to call our bet, and this requires us to bluff one time for every two value bets, and in this example, since 20% of our range on the flop are the nuts, we will be betting 30% of the total hands we had on the flop"

then you keep going and if i resume below you example
River= 20% nuts (2) add 10% (50% from 20%nuts) (1) =30%
Turn= 30% we add the 50% bluff 15% = 45%
Flop= 45% we add the 50% bluff 22.5% = 67.5%

Because you can't just add 33% bluffs if you want your range to be 33% bluffs.

Example: If we have $100 and add $33, then we now have $133. But $33/$133 = is only 24.8%

Thank you Matthew, got the point.

Hello Janda,
How are you?

I'm curious about sth regarding Poker theory. I've asked you again about this one but I still have my doubts. I've been applying theory for CU VS BTN situations and have been using a BTN flatting range that is very similar to the one recommended in your book, a range consisting of approximately 170 combos. I know that a GTO range is a great deal tighter, thus if our goal is to study GTO shouldn't we use optimal Preflop ranges too? I'm using Pokersnowie and it uses tighter ranges preflop, it doesn't make sense using a looser flatting range. I mean balancing ranges using exploitative lines like flatting wider is going to work against weaker players. If we wanna play NL1000 where from what I know people start playing GTO that ain't gonna work. Solutions will be very different also. What should I do? How to study theory, with what starting ranges?


The time I've spent balancing ranges, I did it on paper so what I found can be far from a solution a program like PioSolver would found. I've purchased Snowie recently and after seeing its range advice tool it uses too much mixed stuff when deciding whether to bet or check, for example flush draws. I don't know how a solution like this of Snowie with too much mixed strategies can be easy to apply for those who try to approach a GTO strategy at high stakes. Do u know if solutions look like these in PioSolver for example too or just Snowie works that way? I'm pretty certain it's the first for such a deep game but some simplifications should be made. For example look at this screenshoot

It bets hands like A9,A8 etc some percent of the time, hands which I always check when playing because of kicker problem. I guess it does this to try balancing its range at all turn cards. So how to study these solutions ? Shouldn't we simplify things a little ourselves like checking always A3s, A4s etc ?

I've never used Pio, but every solution I've looked at in videos and screengrabs for GTORB and Pio has featured a LOT of mixed strategies. Game theory optimal play practically demands mixing, in order that the EV of an entire range is maximised.
No one expects you to memorize the frequencies for every combo in your range though. It's not humanly possible. Just use the software to get an idea of the "best" hands to bet or check. Simplifying, as you mentioned, seems like a good idea. Just making the correct decisions with combos that have pure 100% or 0% frequencies will set you apart from most players. (Even good regs make 'blunders' every hundred hands or so when they bet with a hand that is a 100% check in theory).

next step, solvers! me thinks

I don't have much experience with PioSolver but from what I've seen there are lots and lots of mixed strategies. Snowie thinks there are lots of mixed strats, high stakes players think lots of mixed strats, and from the little I've seen PioSolver does too. This should conceptually make sense in a lot of spots since if you always did the same thing with 16 combos of AK or whatever hand makes up many combos it'd likely be exploitable.

I don't really advocate memorizing solutions or trying to solve anything unless you're already very very good. I think it's better just to conceptually understand why certain bet sizes make sense and why certain lines make sense and that will get you better than 99% of poker players. Getting from being top 1% to top 0.1% to top 0.01% is obviously very difficult and that's where you start making major money though, but that really just takes time/talent/practice.