First things first:
I got the book yesterday. I´ve read part 1-2, and it´s FANTASTIC!
I´ve been thinking a lot about pre flop play previously, and I´m glad to see that my thoughts haven´t been far off. But of course there are tweeking to be made.

A question about defending against a SB-raise from the BB (apologies if this already has been asked and answered):
We cold call with a truckload of hands (45%). I´m guessing we are 3-betting for value with JJ+, AJ+ and KQ (they´re not in the CC-chart, and I think it´s -EV to fold them, regardless of what "The Iceman" Monroe might say).
And to not have an unbalanced 3-betting range we need to add the appropriate number of 3-bet bluff-hands.
We can easily find out how many hands, but which hands?
I´m assuming some subset of the remaing KXo, QXo, JXo-hands (however many we need to make Villain indifferent to defending).

Am I going about this correctly?

Thank´s again for writing a great book (at least judging by the first two parts).

How do we adjust the 3betting ranges for a squeeze? Do we want to keep the same frequency of bluffs to value bets and make our 3bet value range wider?

It's hard to know how many hands exactly we need to call, but almost certainly if you work from the assumption that your opponent shouldn't be able to open 100% of hands profitably if he's opening to 3x, than you're going to need to defend enough with a combination of calling and 3-betting. You can make some assumptions about the EV of the bottom of your opponents opening range to help determine frequencies.

Why are you guessing this? There's no exact rule about what range of hands should be 3-bet over calling other than you do the one which is highest EV (duh). The hard part is determining whether a hand is higher EV as a 3-bet or a call. If you 3-bet the range that you listed above than your Kx and Qx ranges will be capped at KJ and QJ respectively which will give the SB an incentive to overbet / value bet "thinly" with hands like KJ and QJ post flop which will than give the BB an incentive to flat stronger hands (AA, AK, AQ). However, by flatting these hands preflop, the BB loses the ability to get more dollars preflop and gives the SB an opportunity to see 3 cards relatively cheaply. In addition, some hands like AK, AQ are more vulnerable to being outdrawn by weaker hands than hands like AA which needs to be considered. This process will go back and forth until an equilibrium is reached between both players.

To be honest, I'm not so sure that it's easy to determine the appropriate number of bluffs since there aren't clear value and bluff hands, and since the equity hands changes so much on most flops ranges won't be perfectly polarized in most cases.

But to answer your question, the answer to which hands should be used as a 3-bet bluff, there's no easy answer other than hands which maximize it's EV (see duh above). This question is not easy to answer either. Things to keep in mind is that the more likely your opponent is to 4-bet or fold, than hands with blockers to his value continuation range (not bluffing range) are good. The more likely your opponent is to flat your 3-bet, the more important the playability of your hand vs his flatting range is important. His 3-bet flatting range will be stronger because of your 3-bet, so hands which can outdraw his stackig off range on the river will play well. In some respects, hands like 98o can make straights which will surely be strong enough when the Villain stacks off. However, if he's opening so wide from the BB that he needs to stack off very wide even in 3-bet pots, than hands like A2o might work better as a 3-bet if the high card strength has enough value equity (not saying this is the case). Than there's just a general idea that all the hands need to work together. In an earlier post in this thread, Matthew talked about how he's adjusting his 3-betting ranges from the blinds different than in the book. Although he didn't explain his reasoning, my guess is that the range he was using to 3-bet prior to the new one, didn't hit enough boards (Q high and Ten high boards), so he decided that hands which play fine as flats need to be 3-bet because he needs to have a certain amount of hand types on different boards. So with that in mind, you might want to think about which bluffing hands work well with the rest of your range. In other words, 98o is always going to work well as a bluff when you're value betting AA. A2o might work well as a bluff or it might also work as a hand that you can check-back on the flop when it hits top pair and use as a bluff catcher on Ax boards to protect your KK-TT hands on Ax boards. Maybe having a blocker is important there (just throwing it out there).

This is a complex subject and hard to model because it's preflop and so many assumptions need to be made and ranges are wide and equity will change a lot on different flops. I think Matt would also admit that it's hard to give exact answers. But if you go through his book, he brings up all of the above and some more ideas which you need to consider and weigh when making this decision.

For the most part the answer is yes. But you'll need to think about how your "value" and "bluffs" work differently against the defending range against two players vs just one... And if you're weaker value bets and weaker bluffs, than you're going to not be able to bluff at the same ratio.

For example, Matt gives the 3-betting and defending ranges for the CO when he's 3-bet from the BB. However, how does the situation change when the CO opens and the Button flats? I can't remember the 3-bet sizing Matt uses in the book, but when we 3-bet here with the same size, we'll be risking the same amount to win MORE (the button call in additon to the CO), so now the CO and BU will need to defend slightly more. However, even though they need to defend more, they share the responsibility of needing to defend enough. This responsiblity will fall a little heavier (I would guess) on the CO because he can have all the strong hands in his range (assuming the BU 3-bets his really storng hands). None-the-less, the BU will have some responsibilty for defending as well. Furthermore, the CO and BU will make an assumption on how much the BB gets back with the worse bluff in his 3-bet range -- this assumption will change since he's 3-betting against a defense of the CO and BU.

This is not easy to answer, but Matt provides all the variables in his book for you to create your own model and answer it yourself.

Understand how equity works, the significance of a polarized range, why position is valuable, what a "value bet" really means, etc. All of this is crucial for determining whether or not to bet and how big to bet in any poker game.

In omaha, ranges aren't going to be as polarized, so you're not going to be able to use bluffing to value betting (or bluffing to value raising) ratios very effectively. But almost all other concepts apply in just about any poker game, whether it be limit, omaha, FR NL, etc.

Also learn how to check for leaks in your database. If you're opening the button in omaha and folding to 3-bets 70% of the time, you're clearly being exploited. If you're very rarely cold calling in the big blind against a button open, you're clearly being exploited. You can't list all the hand combos in omaha like you can in NLHE, so using software will probably be even more important for plugging leaks.

As players use less polarized ranges pre-flop (see my post regarding that), the terms "value bet" and "bluffs" aren't going to work that well pre-flop. Really, pre-flop is a huge trial and error game where you have to take ranges and update them as you figure out how well they play post-flop. It's super easy to prove something must be wrong, but impossible to prove something must be correct.

In general, since you have less stack depth to work with, you'll probably need to be "value 3-betting" a bit more when squeezing. But what's more important is you make sure to emphasize squeezing with hands which play reasonably well in squeezed pots, and try to avoid calling with hands that play poorly in multiway pots.


EDIT: I know there are more difficult questions I didn't answer, and I'll try to respond to those within the next few days. Thank you for those who are responding to them though (specifically EmptyPromises) as it's great to get input from several people and hear concepts explained in different ways.

Hi!
Thank you for your answer!

My reasoning goes like this:
- Janda has a Cold calling range for calling a SB-raise from BB, but no 3-bet range.
- JJ+, AJ+, KQ isn´t in the Cold calling-range
- Since we won´t be folding them or calling them that leaves 3-betting
- Since the hands are to strong to be wasted as bluffs, we are 3-betting for value

I don't like that sentence and have marked it for a correction. I'd now say--

"However, it does allow us to continue to slowplay our flopped sets since they are now full houses and allowing the opponent to see an additional card with his bluffs isn't risky."

Sorry if this has been asked before,

I play mostly fullring,I'm just wondering if this book is for 6max or fullring?

Ahhh... well that makes sense. But I suggest that you try and determine whether some hands will be best as a 3-bet or call yourself by using a similar model that Matt does in his book. He simplified the charts in the book (for example, I'd be surprised that suited connectors and offsuit would be exactly the same here). As he said that preflop requires a lot of adjustments and constant rethinking. So I'd build your own model and see what makes sense. It's more important to understand the why and how, than it is to follow a hand chart.

Is there any value on this book for big NL4 loser?

Thank´s again!
I don´t mind getting my own hands dirty, coming up with and evaluating ranges. Have done so in the past, will continue in the future.
Often times I trust myself.
But I trust Matt more .
That (and, yes I admit it, lazyness), was the reason for asking instead of opening Flopzilla.

On another topic: Have been reading on, and the book is just so good! I´m 1/4 of the way through, and I´m already a better player.

Hey, Matthew, I got a question about GTO analysis of a hand as a starting point in determining our play (I think that makes a lot of sense), and evaluating actual edges that are hidden there.

My copy of the book hasn't shipped yet so I am not sure if it's in there, but anyway, here goes. I am interested in something you haven't been covering in your videos so far (at least not up until about 6 months ago) - the final EV of a hand with the way you suggest it played, for each player.


Take a typical situation that'll be easy to analyze for us as an example.
K72r, 100% HU opener, we flat with about 50% pre (ommiting the very top of our preflop range that we raised for value, assuming it's not in our calling range).


Your analysis usually goes like this - we need to defend X% to make his cbet bluff with ATC not profitable. For a halfpot cbet that is 67%. Then you check for that range with flopzilla and divide it appropriatelly.

You then do similar iterations OTT and OTR.

An interesting question is, where does a hand played like that leave us in the end.

Have you been toying with calculating the actual EVs of such trees at their end for various flops? EG, "if they both play close to optimal, this is what they actually end up with" type of conslusions.
I'm interested in Net worth of various edges, various leaks, and various common lines.

I suspect you're mistaken about the bolded remark. There is no reason to suppose that a HU opener ought not be able to cbet bluff with ATC profitably in the situation you describe. If Mr. Janda has ever made a video suggesting otherwise, that fact cuts severely against his presumed competence. Given the quality of the book, I'm inclined to believe that you've simply misrepresented him instead.

I did not say that "he suggested HU opener ought" this or that.

I said that's one usual starting point, making villains not be able to cbetbluff with ATC, and then constructing ranges around that.

Where that'll take us is precisely what I'm interested in.
What are the EVs of various lines and what kind of edges can be found in various spots.

Janda's been doing 6max vids anyway. That is beside the point. The idea is the underlying logic.

I don't see why not, but there might be better and simpler books for your skill level. You're better off asking microlimit players who have purchased it and see if they like it.

My best guess is Section 1 will be really helpful and the hand examples will likely also help, but a lot of concepts will probably be pretty difficult and you can easily get overloaded with information. Books are really cheap relative to everything else on the poker market so buying it to read section 1 then slowly reading more as you feel comfortable seems reasonable, but reading it cover to cover is probably a bad idea. If you have another book in mind you also would like to read, I'd probably read that book first as this one is likely more advanced.

If you're losing at NL$4 then poker should be purely for fun and really just do whatever you think you'd enjoy.

There's no way to calculate the EV of a hand anywhere except for on the river. It's also too hard to design any simulation (at least I can't do it) where both players are playing "close to optimal" because there are going to be tons of different bet sizings, mixed strategies, etc. So unfortunately it's impossible to show one line has a higher EV than another line and actually prove which line is best.

Also, remember, there's now way to convert equity into expected value. People often forget this but it's hugely important and why NLHE isn't going to be solved anytime soon.

It's of course not solvable, but given how the button opening range is stronger than the big blind calling range and the button has the advantage of position, I think most people would agree (myself included) that there are many flop textures where the button can profitably continuation bet any two cards. That said, one of the most widespread leaks in NLHE is betting hands on the flop just because they're profitable (and it's easy) when in fact checking is more profitable.

I am fine with calculating EVs of hands OTR.

Let me pick your brains a bit more.
We can often see that, for instance, players think how preflop raiser "should" be able to bluff us off profitably on K72. It's a dry board, he has position, etc. etc.
However, our 50% range is actually a 55-45 FAVORITE over his ATC range on that board.

What are your thoughts on the entire matter?


And, how exactly do you think money's going to flow in the end if both players are doing it right?

(And also it's interesting to quantify how it's gonna go if they're doing it wrong!)

What does "to felt" mean?
First time I heard that verb (repeatedly :P) and dictionaries don't seem to help.

Felting = going to showdown.

My thoughts on the matter are probably like 70% of the book. In other words, you have to know a whole lot more than just how much equity each player's range has to understand the situation. Remember, I can have a range with 35% equity on the flop and if my range is polarized enough I can bet my entire range and the opponent has to fold his entire range. So just knowing how much equity each player has isn't even all that useful for determining who should be betting, much less the EV of each player's hand.

The big blind is calling wide because he has a lot of hands where his overall EV for the hand if he folds pre-flop is -1 BB but if he calls it's only -0.8BB or so. So the BB gets to the flop with a weak range that doesn't have a very good distribution of equity (not too many nut type hands on many board textures), and he's OOP in a spot where position is very valuable (wide ranges with much stack depth). That's about all I'd say, we still can't figure out the EV of either player's range or a specific hand in either player's range, and as long as we're usually taking the most +EV line it doesn't matter if the most +EV line is +3BB in EV or +2BB in EV.

If anything I said gave the impression that I disagreed with any of this, I apologize. I only intended to say that "the button ought not be able to profitably c-bet ATC" is an unreasonable assumption to make.

Thx

I just got done reading the preflop and flop part, preflop was pretty eye opening how wide you could 3-bet and the defending to lose less then if you were to fold was a new perspective to look at. Flop play was awesome how you broke everything down, I was already doing most of the things layed out in the flop part of the book because it seemed like the best way to exploit opponents but having the math and formulas and justifications in front of you are awesome so you know exactly why you are doing something. I am on page 200 and look forward to reading the rest, very good book.