Hey Matt,

I think i got confused by semantics here. I would have thought "if our opponent was bluff check-raising, we'll have effectively lost 60 blinds. (40 pot + 20 bet) basically means the Bet EV would look like:

EV_Bet = .... + ... - RaisingFreq. * (Pot + Bet)

Which is not the case. However if it means "by not checking we are effectively giving up the EV we would have realized by checking". Put differently, by betting we move to a different different branch in the decision tree. So we lose the EV of checking but gain the EV of betting.
Does that sound about right?

thx,

Konstantin

is the first book, no limit applications a mandatory read before diving in to this book?

No

I always have a really hard time responding to things like this because poker math/theory has to be so precise and technical in its explanation to be completely correct and a small deviation of the way something is worded often makes a statement completely false.

That said, it sounds like you get it and I think what you wrote is correct, or at the very least you're understanding it correctly and explaining it in a way that makes sense to you.

i just studied through Part 5: Whether to Bet or Check in Position

everything is clear and makes sense, except for one thing...

we are supposed to have a certain bluff:value ratio depending on how many streets of value we plan to be using. however, how do we know which ratio to use when there's both 3 street and 2 street hands in our range on a certain flop (which, i imagine, will most likely be the case)?

example: we open btn, bb calls. flop is K93r... we will have AA/KK/AK/99/K9 in our range.. all potentially 3 street hands. we will have K8s-K2s/KT/K8o/QQ-TT also in our range... all likely less than 3 street hands..

so, when find ourselves on the flop here, with none of these hands, but a potential bluff hand that would be somewhere between the 1:1 and the 2.5:1 ratio (ie, its a bluff that we would bet with if 3 streets, but fold if 2 streets)... how do we decide?

I would look at it from the perspective of your value range:
1. Will KKs, 99s, 33s, K9, K3,..., get three streets of value? This depends on the flop texture (K93r is very dry here) and how you balance your check-raise range). Also in the sense "how good" your value hand really is, depends on how the flop hits your range vs villain's range. I.e. a low coordinated board vs big blind would make an overpair a very tough value hand for the BTN, which means you will not likely bet 3 streets for value.
2. Given the answer to 1. you get your Alpha
3. Given Alpha you get the amounts of bluffs
4. Given 3. you can identify if your hand is rather a check/fold or bluff

I get a That. However, the chapter suggests something that cannot be put into practice. It says (simplified): 2:1 (bluff to value) if 3 streets of value and 1:1 if 2 streets of value... for our flop betting range.

To give an oversimplified example... assume on the flop of Ks9c3h that our range is 9h9s, KhJc, QhTh/Th8h. That’s it. Ok. Now we decide we probably want 3 streets of value with 99 and two streets of value with KJ. When we have 99, we will want to bet both of our bluff combos. When we have KJ, we will only want to bet one of our bluff combos.

That’s good in theory, but it’s impossible in practice. Why? Bc when we are in the hand with T8... do we bet it or not? You have no idea (based on what’s in the chapter)... the answer of “well, if you have 99 then yes. If you have KJ then no” isn’t actionable... because you have neither... you have T8!!!.... if you bet it, you’re overbluffing for when you have KJ. If you check it, you’re underbluffing for when you have 99.

Disclaimer: yes, I know that this example is too simplistic and has too few overall combos to play multimstreet. The principle problem is easily described however.

Hey Matt, and other posters-
First please excuse me if I'm not replying in the right place or order or anything like that. I've been playing for years, but I never embraced forums before due to the nature of how players treated one another for simply trying to learn. So, I don't know much forum "etiquette" if that's a thing.

I have both of your books, and as is the case with some other good ones out there, I didn't have the right brain to really conceptualize the information when I first read it years ago. So I'm on my second and third runthrough now that I'm a much better player than I was then. To keep it short and get to my question, I'll just say thank you for literally everything you have ever put out there on the topic of poker.

So my question is fairly simple, not sure if it's been covered. In the section about defending vs flop bets in 3bet pots in position as the preflop caller, you suggest that we should basically never be raising unless we have a strong but vulnerable hand. The reasoning makes perfect sense. However, when you explain the correct conditions where we would potentially raise, we arrive at a strategy where can make small flop raises on boards where villain's range can consist of a variety of draws, gutshots specifically, allowing him to call profitably but at a much lower EV with his draws than had we simply called.

My only disconnect here is that you mention this resulting in him having a weak range on the turn, allowing many of our bluffs on the turn to be highly profitable. What I'm missing here is that if we are only raising the turn when we have strong but vulnerable hands, what bluffs would we ever have?

From your usage of "strong but vulnerable" in NLHE for Advanced Players, we would have a lot of very good hands on turns that don't improve villain's range, that raised to build the pot in case we win and also deny equity. Are we simply turning some of the weaker versions of those hands into bluffs? I'm not sure where else our turn bluffs would come from if we are only raising the strong but vulnerable hands on the flop. Hopefully this novel of a question is making some sense. Thanks in advance for your reply, or anyone who has a solid understanding of this spot who can shed some light on this for me.

Unfortunately, I don't like the terms "value bet" or "bluff" much anymore. I still think these sections are useful for emphasizing how aggressively you can bet weak hands when there are many streets left to act, and how most of your betting range needs to be strong hands when you're on the river, but the terms "value bet" and "bluff bet" stop being useful once you get relatively good at NLHE (at least form a theoretical standpoint).

But keep in mind this book is pretty old at this point, and looking at bets as "value bets" or "bluff bets" is as older than NLHE itself.

The newer book is much more updated in this regard of how to tell whether to bet or not, and what size to use. It specifically addresses how the terms "value bet" and "bluff bet" don't work in much more detail than here.

I'm not trying to get you to buy another book as I get it sucks being told "the in depth answer to your questions lie in another book," but unfortunately I think that's largely the case.

P.S. Whether you'd bet Th8h or check it on the flop really just depends on your overall range strength relative to your opponents, and if your range is reasonably strong you'll want to bet it because it has super robust equity in the form of 3-to-a-flush and 3-to-a-straight while not having any showdown equity. So in practice if I opened with Th8h and one of the blinds called I'd always CB this hand without doing any calculation.

Do you mean flop here? (look for the word I bolded in the above text) I assume you do but want to make sure before I answer.

Yes, I did mean flop, sorry about that. Basically, if we are only ever supposed to raise flop with strong but vulnerable hands, what hands would we have on the turn that are betting as a bluff?

Yes, I did mean flop, sorry about that. Basically, if we are only ever supposed to raise flop with strong but vulnerable hands, what hands would we have on the turn that are betting as a bluff?

You can definitely bluff raise the flop too in a 3-bet pot. You can't use as aggressively of a "bluffing to value raising ratio" due to the SPR though as you can in a single raised pot.

But if you use a small raise sizing, which you probably often will do to the SPR ratio, a lot of your fold equity will come on the turn after your opponent calls your small flop raise (signaling he's weak) and then you can bet/possibly even jam the turn.

If you have a specific flop in question I can throw it into PokerSnowie and show you what it says. In general best "bluff raises" are hands that can turn straight draws/flush draws to keep firing and possibly even jam.

I actually have Snowie, so I'll run some scenarios through it to get a decent idea. I just wasn't sure if I could use it for all of the situations in your books or not because Snowie only uses one sizing for it's entire range. But it does look like you're focused less on Snowie's preferred sizing and more on the highest EV when looking at specific hands/flops. Is that a fairly accurate assumption? So I could set the scenario, in this case on the BTN as the caller in a 3bet pot, throw random flops in there and then plug in specific hands for HERO and choose the highest EV line for that hand. This way some patterns will begin to emerge I imagine after a while.

Snowie isn't as techincally correct as something like PioSolver, but the results are much easier to interpret.

The closer you get to GTO the more of a mess of mixed strategies you'll see.

I'd highly recommend you do the bolded. Then if Snowie isn't using what you think is the best bet sizing, then just use a better bet sizing when actually playing.

Really interested in purchasing one of the books by Janda- would you guys reccomend Applications over No Limit Hold For Advanced Players, or are both books equally good for learning?

I have an exploitation question when it comes to our continuation betting that I continue to be confused on. I will start on the river since it is less complex than the prior streets with regards to our bluffs.

If we are at the river and we go with a pot sized bet, our opponent needs to call 1 bet to win 2bets or be good. This means that we theoretically should be bluffing 1 time for every 2 value bets.

Now if our opponent folds less than 33%, let's say just 15% in this situation...should we be adjusting our exploitation by bluffing down to 15% in this situation, or is every bluff actually just losing money now to the point that we should not be bluffing. I always struggle with this spot and sometimes check very often when they are not folding enough, but I am not sure if I am looking at it incorrectly.

You're mixing up what each playing is trying to accomplish.

Let's start here. If you are facing a bet of $100 into a $100 pot on the river, and you want your opponent to be breaking even on his bluffs, how often should you be calling (hint: It's not 33%).

You want to be calling 50%, the IP player wants to be bluffing 33%....Sorry for getting it a little off in my wording. Now at the river say IP see that OOP folds just 30% at the river here. Does IP now make the player indifferent by bluffing a lower percentage of hands, or is every bluff no longer profitable since he is calling too often?

Hey Matthew, I just bought your book and started reading. It's great, detailed, and worth the read. However, where can I check the most updated errors and changes to concepts for this book? Is this thread where everything should be? Please post the URL if there's a different thread also. Thanks in advance!

This is probably the best place to see the errors/mistakes/things I'd change. Unfortunately there is no comprehensive list.

Realistically even if I were to re-read the entire book and write down every "error" I've caught or been told about, it'd be hard to even classify what an "error" is (other than a typo or a math mistake). So your best bet is asking here or talking to other poker players (especially if they've read the book) if something doesn't make sense.

Matt, could you please expand on this, I've always called out of position on the turn and river in relation to my odds I am getting laid and IP i've bluffed to the ratio with which the caller is getting odds.

Thus at a river of a pot of $100 and I am checked to, If I pot size bet it then my opponent needs to call $100 to win $200 and I thought I should bluff 33%.

For OOP is the player supposed to be calling with their ratio? you said no which would imply that this is actually 50% because that is the ratio that the IP player wins on a breaks even on a bluff. So IP should be bluffing 33.3% of the time and OOP should be calling 50% of the time, is this correct? I used to overcall here with my odds at about 67% which looks like a huge mistake.

Now, if I did get that right (not sure), then when someone is overcalling do we adjust our bluff ratio down with it to breakeven as the bluffer IP or do we simply not bluff at all to exploit them?

Page 145 "if our turn betting range is perfectly polarized, this requires us to bet the
river 70 percent of the time with a balanced range to keep our
opponent indifferent to calling on the turn."


Where does the betting frequency of 70% come from?

Earlier it says "This requires 70 percent of our river bets to be value bets." but that's not the same as a betting frequency.

I figured out it has something to do with the price we give our opponent.

I do understand the ratio of value bets to bluffs, but why is the frequency we bet have to be the same as that ratio?

I guess because when we check we lose and we bet we win, so therefore we have to carry over the betting frequency. Maybe I just answered my own question. Brain is mush been studying all day! Thanks Matt.

Bolded is correct.

If someone is calling on the river way too much (67% of the time vs a pot-sized bet), then all of your bluffs will be -EV against them and you should not bluff.