New book “Mindblowing Poker” is now available – on Amazon.

I am concerned that poker is slowly killing itself – by becoming closer to a ‘solved’ game, with each iteration we make a short-term gain but the long-term bigger picture is the death of poker. The book’s got new ideas to take on the best GTO players.

This is a book every poker player needs to read. I have gone under cover here (“Professor Poker”) in order to truly open up about my strategies, and the state of poker. I’m prepared for the controversy – but these messages need to be heard.

I can't find the book on Amazon. Are you sure it's there. Perhaps an author's name would help.

Best wishes,
Mason

Very strange - it's new but it's live - I think amazon doesn't like the spelling yet - Please try searching "Mindblowing Poker" (all one word). Author is "Professor Poker"

Thanks

Hi Professor:

I found it. In the description it says: "GTO poker strategy is based on making a series of assumptions about your opponents."

Of course, that's not true. So, perhaps you could explain this in a little more detail.

Best wishes,
Mason

I was hoping someone would ask this question. This really is unique insight I want to share with the poker community and the line of debate I want to open. I understand the theory behind 'GTO' - but fundamentally I believe that all GTO poker strategy and 'solved' scenarios are unavoidably based on a set of assumptions. Many of these we absolutely take for granted - i.e. that our opponent is rational, that they want to win money from a play, or more progressively that they also want to play a GTO strategy.

If, however, you can break the structure of poker to the point where these assumptions are not valid, you can render all equilibrium solutions invalid. Simplest example being a player who would only ever play AA and fold every other hand - vs this opponent the optimal strategy is to fold 100% preflop when facing a raise from that opponent. For avoidance of doubt I'm not talking about exploitative strategy here - what I'm doing is highlighting that there are some assumptions that the game has grown from to underpin strategy.

What the book then does is propose some ways we can nudge high level games into alternative equilibria/paradigms, where even top level players are not so clued in and likely to produce optimal solutions. It's far from fully evolved thinking and I appreciate some of the ideas may divide opinion, but what I hope it can do is move poker towards a less 'solved' approach - where freedom, creativity and on the spot judgments can thrive like they could say 10 years ago.

But the GTO Strategy doesn't change if none of these assumptions are true. However, when that's the case, by playing exploitedly, you can certainly win more than what GTO would produce.

This isn't true.

But you are talking about exploitive play. In addition, you should call if you also have aces.

What GTO experts do is come off of GTO play when it's clear to them that exploitive play is better. However, when they do that, the GTO player can now be exploited. I'm sure this is what your book is about.

I don't think you understand what the word solved means. One way of explaining this is that the GTO expert who sticks to GTO can tell you his complete strategy and you can't defeat it as long as he sticks to it. On the other hand, if you can fool him in such a way that he comes off of GTO thinking he'll exploit you but in reality he's the one being exploited. then he might be beaten.

Best wishes,
Mason

Mason, I agree entirely with your post - but I'm making a slightly different point here. What I'm trying to say is that there is a 'philosophical' GTO strategy for poker - which as you say cannot be defeated provided it is stuck to, and a 'practical' version which is actually being practiced - which is actually a subset of different equilibrium strategies - based on common spots seen and increasingly solvers.

So yes you're correct when you say the book is about knocking GTO players off a GTO strategy - but I insist this is not about trying to get them to play "exploitatively". It's about pushing them into spots in the 'philosophical GTO strategy' that they will not have seen and so cannot execute a GTO response to.

In short: there's millions of fragments of a strategy needed to be truly 'GTO'. What current poker GTO theory does is take the tip of the iceberg - because that's all anyone would ever expect to see. (e.g. crude example but has anyone ever calibrated a solver to ignore rationality for 20% of hands). If you can dig up something bizarre from the bottom of the iceberg (where I simplify by saying you "break the structure") - then even the best players won't have an optimal response.

Hope that makes sense.

This is really easy to prove. If you have found a new amazing strategy than you should be crushing online games so just post a graph/stats.

Also, just because you write a book doesn't mean you are an authority on a subject. Anyone can write a book.

Judging from these posts, you seem to have a tenuous grasp of Theory in general. Also anyone that names themselves Professor Poker, already has a strike against them (read: Howard Lederer).

Dude you clearly haven’t read the book. I’ve started reading it and that’s not what it’s about at all. Looks like OP was just answering Mason’s questions. Book seems quite light on complex theory, its more trying to change our approach to everything. Will update when I get through it.

Hi Slysheeps:

I haven't read the Professor's book even though I did ask a couple of challenging questions. However, because I haven't read it, it's important not to criticize something I haven't read. But this book, even though I haven't read a word, has caught my interest. So, I'll be looking forward to your comments when you have finished it.

Best wishes,
Mason

Really, GTO is a mixed bag and poker will always ultimately be a people game.
Regardless of having this knowledge , and understanding variance, doesn’t make it any easier to deal with the large swings , the rake, and other obstacles that come with this game. Only a very small percentage can adapt

Hi everyone... taking a few points in turn:

@DooDoopoker - I note that anyone can write a book - I actually provide a strong critique of the current state of poker literature and resources in the book. I would also have thought it was about time the poker community could move on from even thinking about Howard Lederer, but hopefully I can redeem the strike you have given me. Finally, since these theories are my own, my grasp of them should not be a concern. What you are saying is that you don't agree with them, but as others point out, it doesn't sound like you have read the book.

@Slysheep - Thanks for reading the book, I look forward to your review. All I ask is that you read with an open mind and seek to understand the motives for where I am trying to steer the poker community in its thinking.

@Softstep - You're absolutely right in so far as GTO poker is only relevant at the higher standards, and indeed usually only when your opponents are playing GTO themselves. This is why my book breaks down the game so that firstly, we try to avoid playing the best players (as much as we can). It has suggestions on how to work out who is strong and who is weak (even online), and ways to make your mental state and the games you play most favourable - in short trying to move to an ecosystem that isn't designed to generate profits purely for the house - which is exactly what will happen if two perfect GTO players played against eachother. When we play weaker players the book has tools to crush them. When we are forced to play the strongest players, it has tools to disrupt their GTO game - and this is the point on GTO theory being discussed above.

I hope you find this useful

Ok I have now read the whole book (I buy so many poker books on amazon but usually give up halfway through). Some massive positives and big negatives so since it’s an interesting one I will do a proper review.

It’s an unusual poker book. You really feel the personality of the author. It does have strategy etc but its not a typical strategy book. it’s main aim seems to be to change the way we approach and play poker. Tbh I would suggest the author reveal themself if they want to have any impact on this, but anyways.

Its fairly simple - as a poker community we should be trying to avoid GTO situations (my understanding is thats because it effectively makes poker at a lifetime stalemate). So then it comes up with smart ideas and funky plays to dodge marginal GTO spots.

Do i think it’s got stuff wildly wrong - no because tbh the author puts in a ton of caveats and the plays are for very specific scenarios. But do I think the plays are *likely* to change the game in a big way - maybe not. It’s not about altering every spot you see (In fact it repeatedly tells you to learn a strong grasp of gto and that youll be better off in the long run with a gto approch in certain spots etc). I think it’s really clever - the principles make sense for me and I would definitely try and use if i were to end up playing against phil ivey. And we do see world class players making crazy and unfathomable plays all the time, so i dont think anyone can dispute that.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I wouldn’t get too hung up on this being a theory book - it basically:

1. breaks down everything that’s wrong with poker (and i like this section- have not seen this stuff before)
2. Comes up with funky new plays and the logic/execution (also says author has had success with them vs strong players, but we dont know who he is so cant verify)
3. From then on it is the insights of a player who by their own account has a reasonable profile and has success in recent poker but wants to stay anonymous so you don’t use all his (or her) own info against them. I’m not sure why they would stay anonymous really but the standard of writing is good. These pages are mostly well written and give an interesting perspective - trying to bridge a gap between different eras of poker.


However, there are a few annoying parts. 1. I want way more example hands. It has 6-8 but I think it needs more - especially for some of the funky plays like ‘range swapping’. 2. I don’t think I personally would be capable of executing some of the strategies or many typical players would. 3. Some of the points on the mental game seem a bit half assed. 4. Author defo tries to tilt you in places (deliberately i think) especially when he picks out things i was kind of aware i do and slates you for it, but also just generally.

Overall I’m thinking that it’s well worth a read - i really enjoyed reading it and it could be the real deal (if you can ignore where author tilts you). Id love it if poker was more interesting/ returned to poker boom times. A lot of the ideas are fresh (some based on things we’ve seen before but repurposed quite well) - would be good for a full expert to look into some of them but it feels to me that it really could be on to something.

Aside from the fancy strategies, it’s great just more because it’s a diverse perspective, well thought out and I’ve always thought poker theory can become a bit of an echo chamber.

Thank you for your review, Slysheeps.
That's acceptable for a theory book. Would you say it's a theory book like the theory of poker or something more practical like the grinder's manual?

Yes, that would be nice. Maybe Mason will find the time?

I am between two minds at the moment. While I don't mind losing $200 dollars at a poker table, I go on life tilt when I waste $20 on a book I find uninteresting and after reading so many in my early poker days, I have progressively become hard to please. And without a sample or further reviews, I am currently undecided.

It's good to see a thorough review and thanks for this Slysheep. I will take on board your review points - but note there are points where I say I deliberately have not included an example hand - because that will encourage the majority of players to begin trying to find specific issues with a specific spot, rather than understanding the underlying concept I have introduced. That said I am very happy to discuss the application of the concepts either here or on Twitter.

And Brother Love - I wrote the book deliberately to be 'contrarian' to previous poker books and the current poker narrative. The first half of the book will definitely be an interesting read for you as this is where I introduce a range of new concepts and understanding. The second half is structured more similarly to other poker books - but rather than repeating whats already out there I have tried to only write down new points/insights from my mind, and hopefully skip over things that would be repetitive.

I haven’t actually read the grinders manual so sorry I cannot say which it was more like for me. It goes through the new strategies and says what it is, why to do it, when to do it, how to execute. A lot of it is quite descriptive rather than being mathsy, but then it usually points out the mathematical points somewhere. I don’t think you’ll find it boring, it is engaging.

Thanks for your reply professor, i will come back with some questions. Think i need to read a few bits again before though. What i want is to ask about a few hands with range shanking. What confuses me is what you need to assume about the villain when you do it. So i agree it is a great tool but i cant get to place where im doing it online.

Great - I look forward to your questions.

It's also now available as an e-pub on Amazon if this was previously deterring you!

Ok I have two main questions. Firstly on range swapping. I get the principle that you deviate from gto sometimes and this swapping of ranges is that deviation here. But the book says that you play the hand as normal after pre-flop, so I’m a bit confused. If I do a swap and open utg with K9 suited, how do you advise me to play flop ‘as normal’? Srry just confused because I don’t have a way to play k9 from utg.

Second question is on big spot poker - finding it really hard to find a spot to do this one? I know there’s an example in the book but are you really using this one much with the same maths as you put in your example?

I am actually sorry - that is one phrase in the book which I should have expanded on a lot, as reading it back again now I can see it's not fully clear. What I mean by "as normal" is there is nothing too funky about the rest of the hand - if you want to develop a gto solution from flop onwards then go ahead, if you want to play exploitatively then that's also fine. What I would expect is - let's take example that you open UTG with some low suited connectors, find yourself being called by the button and then miss the flop completely. You now need to play the hand as if you have a "normal" range i.e. not swapped. We think the gto villain puts us on a strong range, and if the flop is well suited to that range, we must bluff a disproportionately high amount of the time - because the villain is giving our range credit and will therefore overfold. Conversely, when we do get a flop that we have hit very well, that will make no sense for the range the villain perceives we have (e.g. we have 34 suited on flop of 344) we must also bet extra for value, as villain will think we are bluff heavy.

You ask about K9 suited. This is actually tougher because the King could be dominated a lot by villains range. If you get 1 caller - you would bet Ace high flops, maybe Queen or jack high flops (because our hand has extra bluffing power and this is where the profit is). You would also bet 9 high flops for value and all nutted type flops e.g. 992 (where you get extra value as villain does not expect you to have as many 9s in your range when infact you have loads). You would struggle to get multiple streets of value bets in on King high flops (as your hand is actually worse than what you represent), so those are ones to check.

On Big spot poker - much easier one to answer - as stated this is only to be used very rarely - I'm talking a few times in your career. I wouldn't expect examples to be jumping out at you every day to spot and you'll never get a textbook example. What I wanted to get across was the concept and for players to have that in the back of their mind when a given hand is more important than they usually face. Hope that helps and let me know any more questions.

The problem with your explanation is that the Villian you’re describing is not playing GTO.

Mason

Hi Mason - can you explain why you think this?

A villain playing GTO will play their range vs hero with a range assigned for hero (which itself should be optimal). Changing hero's range to make the villain's input for hero's range defunct, does not mean villain is no longer GTO.

What this means is if GTO villain knew hero's true range, they would call more often, hence they are now overfolding.

If you want the extreme opposite example to prove the point: Imagine Player A only ever bets the nuts. GTO villain will still call with the GTO correct frequency, but they are also calling too much vs Player A's range.

Please shout if I minunderstand your issue. Separately, have you read the book?

Yes I can. But it's not something I do for non-2+2 authors.

I think it would do you much good if you read Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em by Matthew Janda.


You're describing exploitative play, not GTO.

GTO calling frequencies have nothing to do with the opponents range.

From this post, it appears you misunderstand a lot. Also, I have not read your book and from this post I don't think I want to.

Mason

I'm sorry Mason, I don't understand your hostility on this. I have read the book you mention and can assure you I have a thorough understanding of game theory in poker and more widely.

I feel your dismissive comment is incorrect:

I wrote: "What this means is if GTO villain knew hero's true range, they would call more often, hence they are now overfolding."
- You respond "You're describing exploitative play, not GTO.".

No this is absolutely not describing exploitative play (I'm saying if they knew hero's true range they would like to call more but are not, so technically they are overfolding. Villain is 'overfolding' because they have not changed from their own optimal calling frequency. Example: if a villain is playing GTO, and you were to change hero's range, while villain keeps strategy the same, then applying your logic that now means the villain is now playing exploitative poker. This is obviously not the case, because the villain hasnt changed a thing.

In terms of your other point, as I understand it, you're saying that an optimal calling frequency is completely agnostic of villain's range for a GTO player? As I mentioned earlier I think what's driving your comment must be an ideological "philosophical GTO". In reality, a GTO strategy being played by said player in today's game would probably arise through solver output etc, and I'm at a loss how in practical terms this wouldn't rely on either inputs of, or calculcations based on simulations, of a villain's range.

I really want you to understand the points I'm making. They cannot be dismissed so easily and there is a great deal of thought underpinning them. I do really feel it is a step forward for poker community, but as I say this is one of a number of new concepts I've introduced. The book was designed to open discussion and there are many flaws with some of these concepts, but I can assure you, the ones you have identified here are not the right ones.

No one is being hostile to you. But you're not describing a GTO player. I suggest you take this to our Poker Theory Forum and post it there.

But I will give you one hint. What expert GTO players often do is that they see where their opponent(s) is deviating from GTO play and then they use this knowledge to exploit them. You seem to have all of this confused.

So if I'm a GTO expert and I know my opponent will only bet the nuts in a certain situation, I'll leave my GTO calling frequency, play exploitative poker, and now fold. Again, you have all this confused.

Another book that will explain this stuff to you is The Theory of Poker Applied to No-Limit by David Sklansky.

The idea that you see how and where your opponent is deviating from GTO and then you deviate from GTO to exploit them, appeared in some of our books years ago. You may want to look at The Intelligent Poker Player by Philip Newall which was published in 2011.

Mason

I don't have anything confused, I'm talking about a villain playing GTO - You are now describing a player who is not playing GTO, and who is now playing exploitatively - which is the issue you had with my initial post. You can't have your cake and eat it here.

If I'm to surmise that you also think the GTO villain has the skills to adapt to hero's deviation, then that is the very point my book is about (a) they typically do not (as the vast majority have learned spots by wrote / solvers), but mainly (b) hero must disguise this deviation and get away with it for as long as they can and then must stop that particular sub-optimal deviation immediately once there's a chance the villain recognises it.

The book centres on setting up spots where you can deviate from GTO and the villain wont adapt instantly, giving you a short-run gain. You really are lost in a spiral of theory if you think there's a villain who always adapts on the spot perfectly.

I'm very well aware of these books, and I'm sure there are lots of books about making exploitative adaptations to your game. That's not what I'm talking about here. My book is about deviating from GTO in a way that your opponent does not realise, and then when they apply a GTO solution, it makes their response sub-optimal compared to if they had all of the information about your hand/range. The very oversimplified example I've given of a player who only bets the nuts is very clear, and I don't think you've raised any point which I have not explained comfortably here or above.