Ok now I'm thinking they represent UTG and BU ranges as these are the IP ranges discussed earlier in the chapter.

Let me be a little more specific. In this specific example, the CO opens with 15.8 percent of his hands and the button calls with 15.9 percent. So the number of hands is about the same (and the hands that the button would 3-bet with are not included). However, the CO's range is uncapped while the button's range is condensed.

Thus, and this simplifies things for sake of argument, the CO should bet all its value hands plus a certain percentage of bluffs on the flop. On the turn, the CO will again bet about the same percentage of value hands but a different percentage of bluffs, and the same again on the river.

The button, will mainly be left with bluff catching hands (because of his condensed range). Thus, the button should GTO call with a certain percentage of hands on the flop, and again call with the same percentage of hands on both the turn and river assuming the CO always bets the same size of the pot.

My claim is that this GTO betting scheme will give the CO a significant advantage, which is not what the book says --"The BN's range is tighter than the Hero's, creating a more equal situation that will ultimately benefit the BN, given that they are playing IP post-flop."

A little later in the chapter the author states "In fact, the CO's range is generally weaker than the BN's and CO could easily opt for a 100% checking strategy with minimal to no EV loss." But the upper part of the CO's range, since it's uncapped, should be stronger, and when you throw in multi-round Game Theory, I question this conclusion, and I think this idea, whether I'm correct or the author Michael Acevedo is correct, is worthy of discussion.

Mason

This has already been answered by other posters. But something that you don't know is that we at 2+2 have always been in favor of more good poker books being available and less and ones. That's because, and this is our opinion, when someone, perhaps like yourself purchases a good book, you'll be inclinded to purchase more poker books. But when a bad book is purchased, we feel that the buyer is far less likely to purchase other poker books.

Am I missing something? Isn't this the only type of book like this out there? At least I don't know of any others.

Mason

I'm going by memory, but I think there's a table in the book where the only time the author says to make this play is when the all-in player is in the small blind and the hero is in the big blind.

Mason

Hi Eponymous:

I also want to point out that D&B is the same publisher for both the Cinchy book and the Acevedo book.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi kid:

While I’m still slowly reading, this book should get at least an 8. And for those who don’t know, any book that I give an 8 or higher to is something I recommend.

Best wishes,
Mason

Thanks Mason, your reception to this book has changed quite a bit since your first impressions. You also recommended Cinchy's book and I really want to commend you for acknowledging great work from other publishers like D&B.

Well said. I don't know of anyone familiar with Mason's body of work as a reviewer who believes that he isn't "fair and balanced" (to coin a phrase).

Hi!
So i have a question about the book, so i hope this is the right place here :-)

I´m curious about a hand range in the book, maybe it´s a missprint or something. So i´m talking about the hand range Nr. 53 cold 4bet range (in the 6max cash game eqi), isn´t here the range against the LJ & HJ and the CO & BTN inverted? And how i have to understand the only BTN range here?

Hope someone could help me here

Thx

It actually looks to be quite an interesting intuition for the math. Of course the prior is a very simple way of looking at it and the easiest to come to, however the concept of actively folding out equity from your opponent's hand looks to be one of those little eccentricities indicative of a natural prowess for the logic of the game and self-guided learning. From what I've read about this guy, he seems pretty mathematically talented, and for such a large book I would have thought it would be exceptional.

Of course writers such as Janda, Sklansky and many other theoreticians (including yourself) have made huge leaps and bounds in developing the mathematics, however surely a successful player's approach to the game is one of the most valuable lessons to be taken from a book aimed at intermediate players, no? I feel this can often be best expressed by the few mistakes here or there, digressions, eccentricities and going over topics previously covered by authors. A player's intuition is the most valuable asset, thus to be able to express the way an author actually sees the game/ approaches the problems is probably more important even than the maths/ solutions themselves (although of course, a completely erroneous book is of no help to anyone).

One could almost say it to be more beneficial to read 3 books covering roughly identical concepts by 3 different authors than it is to read 3 books covering consecutively advanced concepts by one.

I was looking at MTT ranges in chapters 08 & 09 and i noticed that some charts are missing. For example:

- There is a chart for Lojack vs Button 3-Bet but not Hijack vs Button 3-Bet.
- There is a range for Lojack vs Button rejam at 25bb but not Lojack vs Cutoff rejam at the same stack depth.
- Various others, like UTG charts.

I was thinking if these omissions are intentional and you are supposed to treat Lojack & Hijack as middle position and all UTG seats as early position, even though it isn't stated in the book.

is this book worth reading for a cash game player? seems that it is focuses on MTT

There is a good chapter on 6 max (100bb) Cash Game Equilibrium with ranges +.. also seperate chapters on general pre flop, flop, turn, and river theory that would probably help you out too.

thanks for your reply. what is the proportion of MTT:cash game contents would you say?

On page 53 on the exploration of the MinEqR there's an example of BB facing UTG 2bb open and a pot of 5.625 before his call (p. 49), but when the MinEqR formula is presented it says the Pot Odds are 18 (?), can someone please help me understand how this value is arrived at?

Thanks

The value of 18 is referring to your pot odds as a percentage. Check the formula on the bottom of page 49 and the example.

Pot odds = risk / (risk + reward)

I think that answers your question?

Yep figured it out shortly after posting and forgot to delete post, thanks !

I also have a question about page 53. I tried solving the minimum EqR by making EVCall = 0 and then solving for EqR. This gave me an EqR of 0.73, but after that he uses another formula to show that the minimal EqR needed is 0.61.

Also if I plug 0.61 into the Ev call equation I get a negative number. What am I missing?

This is from the section on hands to defend on the button.

Your flatting range is made of hands that have good post-flop playability and offer good board coverage. You protect your calling range by slowplaying hands such as QQ (22%), JJ (52%), TT (59%), 99 (72%) and AKo (23%), as well as hands that can call against squeezes and play post-flop such as AQs (30%), AJs (37%), ATs (71%), KQs (65%), KJs (67%), KTs (30%) and QJs (41%)

Are all of those hands the hands we should play if we get squeezed? The first group being a mix between calling/4-betting and the second group a mix between calling/folding?

That's how I'm reading it, but wanted to make sure, because I didn't see an actual chart for how to defend when squeezed.

1-yes, all of those hands should continue if we get squeezed;
2-the % should be mix vs LJ open (range 62), for example AQs 70% 3bet, 30% call.