I know it relates to the graphics on p. 267/268 but I have no Idea how to do it in the table

Hey,

I have multiple troubles understanding the statement p.174.

It seems to me that on the contrary the strength of BB's average hand have decreased with the flop. If I plug the ranges into pokerstove I get for BB:

Preflop: 56.2% equity
Postflop: 54.3% equity

and then:

The dotted line represent the end of the preflop and the solid one the the beginning of flop play... So it should be the contrary, it should say : "since the dotted line is on average lower than the solid one"

At which graph should we look btw? The left or the right one?

Lol. Give me an aspirine.

Please, help.

So, after watching the vid pack I tried my hand on some Gambit. Don't know if this is the correct thread, hopefully it is.

IMAGE 1:



I tried to model a situation where there's a straight on the board and players either have the split or the 6-card straight. Both

have the 6-card straight 10% of the time. There's a pot of 1, and a stacksize of 1 behind. Players can jam or fold.

First question: did I get all the information sets right? Follow up: is C:2 and C:3 one information set?

I guess it's ok that the BB never checks a straight OOP because the SB/BTN can't put enough pressure on him anyway, only jamming

30% (.1*1 + .9*(2/9)) of the time when checked to.

It's a bit weird to note that being in position in this game has 0 value. Even when it's asymetric. When the BB has 20% nuts and

the SB only 10% pay-offs are 33/20 and 27/20, if it's the other way around payoffs are 27/20 and 33/20.


The game looks the same when we increase SB nuts frequency. BB jams his nuts and some splits. SB calls everything. BB checks rest

of his splits and calls everything.

This is true for up to SB nuts 33/100 (BB nuts still 1/10). See IMAGE 2.



At SB nuts 34/100 it completely shifts. See IMAGE 3.




Now, the BB checks everything, and the SB jams all his splits, as many nuts as he can, and checks the rest of his nuts behind. BB,

interestingly, only calls his nuts and folds his splits, so folds 90% of the time. I can see why, but it's still weird to see.

Side question: what do we make of the calling frequencies in nodes the BB doesn't take? For example, the SB folding the nuts to a

bet (upper 2:1)? Just ignore.


It seems like in this situation, BB play is to either frontjam nuts and enough splits, c/c all other splits. Or if SB is too

strong, just check everything and calling all your nuts, folding everything else. This is def not what I expected ><

Interestingly, this remains true when we vary BB nuts frequency (1% but also 90%). Yet, even though SB frequency is the only

variable affecting what the game looks like, position has no value in this game. Why is that ?_?

Cliffs: Would like to know if I used Gambit correctly/modelled the situation correctly. Would like to discuss the weird-looking results - nothing seems to matter but one infliction point that totally changes how the game looks.

If some of you guys are interrested in sharing the exercises solutions contact me by PM!

Cheers

Just saw the split pot vids, funny that I did exactly what you did (and correctly too!)

Totally missed the all equilibria option though.

I started reading Tipton's book recently and only got to p.139 so far. I had thought i'd postpone general comments until after I am finished but what I read already convinced me that this not only is the best books on poker I have ever read (and I have read about 30 such books) but it also is one of the best books about any technical/practical/theoretical topic that I have read (and I have read hundreds of those). The depth of insight, rigor of analysis and clarity of presentation are impressive. It also seems guaranteed to stand the tests of time. Finally, it has the virtue of being tough enough so that only few players will both read it though *and* perform the work required to fully assimilate the content.

I am currently doing the exercise proposed on p.130 with some post-flop scenarios pulled from my game and this is incredibly instructive both as a means to reviewing the previously covered material but also for finding possible heroic leaks and exploitable villainous tendencies.

Few minor errors not yet listed in the errata (or typos almost not worth mentioning that might be fixed in the next printing):

p.82: last line of text, "8-6o" should read "8-7o"
pp.98-99: the references to figures 3.3 and 3.2 should rather be to figures 3.9 and 3.8 respectively.
p.131 bottom third of the page: "than Hero should bluff 100%" should read "then...".

I am also looking forward to the eventual release of your next video together with the computational tools mentioned earlier in the thread. I understand you've been busy moving. I have of course pre-ordered vol.2 and will buy the video pack shortly.

Also, congratulations to the author for the award of his PhD and for his new job at Google!

I have both the ebook and hardcopy. When I go thru the examples I think it would be aweesome if I had the range syntax to put into software (such as propokertools odds oracle or flopzilla) just so I can look at the range and look at equities by myself. Such as...

Page 48
If we count all these combos that /= 45. besides point, anyway to copy+paste these into pptoo or flopzilla without writing them down individually?

Great book still early in it.

Yes, pretty sure that if a node is never reached then the frequencies should be ignored

Try Tools > Dominance > Hide actions which are dominated

Ive been preaching this book a while now.
I have read it cover to cover 3 times and still feel like time I waste reading crap like Jonathan Littles books us just time I could be using to reread Tiptons book again.

Is part 2 out yet or no?
Ordered it 5 months ago and it was supposed to be in in one month.
Not sure if it's the book store or if volume 2s just not out yet?

I found vol. 1 of Jonathan Little´s series to be one of the most helpful of the 60+ poker books I have read. I haven´t bought Will Tipton´s book because I only play tornaments.

You know that flopzilla auto generates text ranges right (without weightings)? You can output any range from flopzilla in standardized text format by clicking the green range button towards the upper left of the gui. Its nice because you can graphically create any range you want extremely quickly once you are accustomed to the interface and then instantly convert it to universally usable text.

Bumping due to interest re: the iPython videos' eta. Looking forward to them.

D&B poker website has released an extract of vol.2, you can find it here:

http://www.dandbpoker.com/perch/reso...-2-extract.pdf

Seems that the ultimate deadline is late April for US market and late May for Europe.

Im really happy about what i see in this extract And i hope i could get this book faster than late May here in Europe through amazon

I've started to work on the solutions of the exercises of the book, here it is:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

There are just a couple of them for now and if some of you have worked out some of the exercises feel free to send me the answers, I will add them to the sheet.

Regarding Jonathan Littles books, not trying to derail but seriously his book is chuck full of opinions, inconsistencies, and some straight up and down contradictions.

that said, its got some useful infofor relative new players and old school TAG players looking to lAG up their games.

Tiptons book is not based much on opinion and is never contadictory. Dont let the Heads Up theme throw you off, its the most important book on poker strat in print in my personal opinion.

Buy it,
Read it,
read it again and do excersizes,
become a better player..

wait in pain for v2.

I´ve already stated that I found JL´s book(vol.1) to be very helpful. I take it that as you´ve read his book that you are a tournament player. I only play tournies, so I would like to ask you in what way you think Yaqh,s book can help someone like myself.

Hi thecantonkid,

I think this book can help you even if you're a tournament player. Most books will give you "recipes", when to c-bet, when to steal, when to do this, when to do that, but they don't really tell you why or when they do, it's mostly generic advice:

- You should c-bet because the flop is dry
- you should c-bet because you don't have any showdown value
- You should iso limpers
- you shouldn't slowplay on drawy boards

I'm sure you've read all this before... Add a chapter on the importance of position, another one on pot odds and implied odds and you've got a typical poker book. You read this and you think to yourself: : Well, yeah... that makes sense... And that's pretty much it: common sense.

Common sense is all well and good but sometimes it may not be good enough and sometimes it's just plain wrong. As always, it depends.

This book is different in that it goes beyond these generic one liners. The way poker spots are studied in this book is as follows:
1. First the game conditions are defined (stack sizes and strategies, i.e. the players' ranges for each available option)
2. Once the game has been defined, the author shows you how to solve the game

"Solving" here means maximizing your EV/the value of the game.

The focus is on GTO strategies since the assumption is that both players are trying to maximize their EV. Some people seem to think that exploitative play and unexploitable/GTO play are two completely different things, they're really not: When you play GTO you're still trying to make as much money as possible, you just assume your opponent is doing the same thing.

Anyway, the great thing about this approach is that once you know what the GTO strategy looks like in a given spot/game, you can start to think about how to exploit an apponent who deviates from it. And, since the players' ranges are defined precisely, you get to see exactly what's going on.

It's a theory book so theoretical concepts and tools will be introduced (Nash, decision trees, indifference equations...). These tools are used to solve the games/spots analyzed in the book.

This book is about river play, mostly. The author starts with preflop only games, I don't know whether they will be directly applicable to the games you play, but that's not really the point: they are "simple" games, used to demonstrate the theoretical concepts.

Chapter 7 is about river play and I can see Donovan's point above... Let's just say that this book makes other poker books "look bad" (Still haven't given The Mathematics of Poker a fair try). It's not an easy read (not for me anyway), but then again poker is not really an easy game.

I'm reading it for the 3rd time I think and I'm starting to understand a few things... So, not easy but it's a nice feeling when you feel like you figured something out, even if it's after 2 or 3 reads. I don't know how good you are at poker but you can probably learn a lot from this book.

I agree but this is a matter of opinion. I guess the question is: Is this book worth buying?

"lol" comes to mind... I'll just say: Best $25 I've ever spent.

Spot on, good review.

if you want to become a strong poker player, then definitely this book and probably Janda's book too are essential reading.

It´s very kind of you to take the time to go into so much detail.

I asked the author the same question 3 months ago and his reply was unable to convince me, no doubt partly due to the fact that his modesty impedes him from extolling the virtues of his book in a way that you and a couple of others have done in the last week.

I´ve had the book sitting in my amazon basket for since the start of the year. My main problem is lack of time to study, especially as you say it´s not an easy read.

I´m sure I will eventually buy it (it´s not a question of money, just time).

Anyway, thanks again for answering.

Chris.

You're welcome. As you might have guessed by now, I feel pretty strongly about this book.

Volume 2 thread is up

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/33...ipton-1433323/

This is going to be nr 1 thread on this forum. Kicking myself that i only now started seriously read volume 1
PS dam this is not v2 but v1. Anyways this is awesome also

Hey Will,

I just finished rereading chapter 7 and once again, I have a bunch of questions. Hopefully you can help:

The 'almost' here depends on the effective stack size on the river, right? It depends on how much we can bet/overbet relative to the pot?

Do we assume that the stack sizes are the same sine it's HU?

I remember using the prime symbol (') when dealing with derivatives and I'm wondering what B* is here. Do we have:

B* = EVHero(betB)' (prime) or maybe
B* = the value of B which satisfies EVHero(betB)' = 0
Something else?

Do you mean when/if SB bets the river or SB's getting to the river range?

Are you talking about the ability to play more bluffs profitably by raising a wider polar range on the river? Or, do we assume the "checker" won't have enough strong hands in his range to bet/take the lead (similarly to what you said on page 223, section 7.2.5, where wilain had some slow plays)?

By 'approach', you mean overbetting here, right?

OK, from section 7.3.1, since checking means losing:

1. I understand that we use our top X% to bet, even if some of them have an EQ < EQSB(Hc)
2. It also makes sense to me when you say we could have used our crappiest hands as bluffs (same result when called)
3. In example 7.10d we remove some of our value hands and you say that in this case the equilibrium change: Since our overall betting range has gotten weaker if we keep betting all the hands whose EQ is > Mb, SB's previous cutt-off hand, hc, becomes a clear call.

Here is what confuses me:

- If you compare 2&3, in both cases (say we actually used our crappiest hands as bluffs) our overall betting range is weaker and yet in case #2 it would not make a difference, whereas in case #3, it does.

So... is it the equity of our overall betting range that matters or is it the overall equity of our value betting range, the hands whose EQ is > EQSB(hc) or even maybe the number of combos that beat Hc?

I don't understand the part that's in parentheses.

The first part of the sentence makes sense to me but again, I don't get the part in parentheses. if vilain raises us with worse, he's bluff raising us, right? Did you mean whether he calls or folds with it?

Do you mean BB here?

Do you mean that since he has a bunch of air hands, many of the SB's weaker hands have more incentive to call a bet?

Is this "general rule"? I mean, should we generally try to devise our strategy to target the largest group of hands in our opponent's range that have the same/similar equity?

One more...

How does it feel to have a real job ?

No plans for any more books. They're a lot of work!

FWIW, tho, I'm not sure that "Made Simple" is the right approach to poker theory, or to any technical topics that you actually need to do real work in. A Brief History of Time is a great treatment of modern astrophysics if you want to make cocktail party conversation, but it isn't a useful reference to people doing real work in the field -- it's oversimplified/not quite true in too many spots.

A cocktail party level of poker theory understanding (which is available from a number of sources these days) is just enough to feel confident sitting down and losing money. People looking to get in the games without doing much legwork are probably better served by more traditional poker strat books.

If I were to do more introductory work, it'd be more on reading our own range, a la the end of this post:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=353