Right, I was asking "have you read the book?" because it's discussed in the book.

If you've read the book and are still confused I can try to point you where to look. If you haven't read the book, I'd prefer you read the book to get the question answered, then if you're still confused I can try to clarify any confusion.

I am reading the book and i really dont understand this concept

i mean i understand that when me put spot in solver and will give EV of lines and if lines have same ev it doesnt matter if you take check line of bet line BUT I DONT UNDERSTAND DOES THIS MEAN IN VACUUM(ONE HAND SAMPLE) VS OPTIMAL OPPONENT it doesnt make difference in EV if you bet or check or DOES THIS MEAN THAT IN ORDER BOTH LINES TO HAVE SAME EV VS OPTIMAL OPPONENT WE NEED TO BET/CH X FREQUENCIES

It means closer to the bolded.

i see ty

Imagine you're playing rock-paper-scissors against a GTO bot. It plays the unexploitable strategy of randomly throwing each option such that - over an infinite sample - each choice is made a third of the time. It's unbeatable. Whatever response you choose will have the same EV. You could throw equal proportions of rock, paper and scissors (the GTO strategy that utilizes mixed frequencies), and you'll break even in the long run, or you could just throw rock every single time and still break even, because the bot won't adapt.
If you tried playing against an exploitative nemesis that knew you always throw rock, you'd lose, because it would just throw paper every time. Mixing stops you being exploited by an adaptive/exploitative agent, but a GTO robot doesn't adapt. It doesn't need to, because it has a strategy that doesn't lose against anyone.
As long as you always pick an option that is part of the solution (even if it's an option that only gets chosen 1% of the time), you'll break even. As soon as you do something that isn't part of the solution (e.g. you fold, when calling or raising are +EV), you're losing.

Crystal, Thanks!

You should release a book "Poker GTO for dummies who struggle with MOP"

I would buy it

I really should have to pay to keep you on retainer for this thread ArtyMcFly.

Makes total sense to me now. My thanks to you as well, Arty

Hey Matthew.

Great book...just finished my first read thru, now about to start going thru again in more detail. Also, your first book contributed a lot to my advancement as a cash player, so again thanks.

I have a specific, detailed question...I hope you don't mind and as you have software, i guess should be no more than plug in and get the solution...

What would be your likely BB defensive range (as a %, or as combos) in the following spot(s)

50 to 100 nl fast poker (zoom or the like)

UTG 500 hands/solid reg/RFI UTG 10% (77+,A9s+,KTs+,QTs+,AJo+,KQo)

opening 5x, all fold to hero in the BB

I understand a 5bb utg rfi might contradict "solid reg", but go with it...

I don't have snowie btw...yet.

@Fatboy
Snowie gives a lot of respect to oversized bets (i.e. it folds a lot). At 100NL in the BB facing a 5x open by UTG, it would use the following strategy:


(Vs more "standard" sizes, it defends with all pairs, nearly all SCs, and most Broadway combos.)
Whether Snowie's range would do well against your particular opponent is debatable. Villain's post-flop tendencies should guide your pre-flop decisions, I should think.

Hi Matt,

I just got your book, as well as Applications. I'm a microstakes player (nl2 getting ready to move) and have struggled to implement what I read into my game in the past. I have read TGM and had a RIO membership for a few months.

Any tips on how to do so or how to go through the book? I've been reading a chapter every few days (only read upto why we bet) and giving myself some time to play and process and think about different hands as they come up.

Thanks

@Arty

Cheers matey...that confirms what I suspected.

Absolutely.

I think No Limit Hold'Em for Advanced Players is an easier read than Applications, so I'd probably read that one first if you are having trouble with Applications.

It should be pretty readable cover to cover even if you don't have a lot of experience with poker theory.

If you are reading No Limit Hold'Em for Advanced players and reading a little bit at a time, taking notes or highlighting, and actually pausing to think and trying to do the questions and answers at the end of each chapter, then I think you're reading it in the most effective way possible. Unfortunately poker material isn't usually material you can digest just once and go "ok great I fully understand this" and immediately implement it into your game. That's especially true because all the concepts eventually start to blend together and feel very connected, so it's hard to learn any one concept super well the first time until you already know other concepts (yet you have to start somewhere).

Thanks Arty.

Also on another note PioSOLVER isn't a super quick "plug and chug" for most calculations (I couldn't have done the calculation you're asking for with the PioSOLVER version I own and the with the processing power on my desktop) and for PokerSnowie you can't insert in specific ranges.

Hey Janda
I found something and I dont if I'm thinking wrong or if there is a small inconsistency in a calculation.
On page 56, "but if your opponent just folded to your 3bet, you'd have immedtiately won $ 8. So, in order to want your opponent to call your 3-bet rather than fold, you EV on the flop would need to be at least $ 24 (The $ 16 you invested pre flop plus the additional $ 8 you could have just won if your opponen folded). "
See the $ 16 is our entire 3bet (including our big blind $ 2). The $ 8 includes $ 5 of the open, $ 1 of the SB and $ 2 of the BB. Notice that our $ 2 BB is counted in duplicity ($ 16 and $ 8). Would not it be correct for me to think that our EV would have to be greater than $ 22 ($ 16 + $ 8- $ 2) instead of thinking $ 24 ($ 16 + $ 8) as stated in the book?
Am I wrong?

Maybe I screwed up. I don't have the book in front of me so LMK if I remember it correctly.

Let's say everyone starts with $200, we put in $2 for the BB. Folds to the button who opens to $5, SB folds after putting in $1 for the SB, and we 3-bet.

If villain folds, we're at $206.

If we 3-bet to $16 and villain calls, then we'll have $184 left and the pot will be $33. If we want to get to the $206 that we'd have if villain would have folded, then we'd need our EV to be $206-$184 = $22.

So our EV would need to be $22 for us to want to be called, not $24.

Assuming I remember the example correctly then I think you are correct and I screwed up. Good catch.

Exactly!!

Thanks for the reply and thanks for sharing with us this great book!

I have a question about a couple of the examples:

On page 113 it advises betting the flop big with AT or better on T72c

On page 241 the hand discussion has a half pot cbet with AT on a T95 flop

Why is there a difference? Is it just the case that AT here is close to the bottom of the 'big' betting range so it doesn't matter too much whether we go big or half pot?

Since the topic of equivalent EVs has popped up again, I thought to add where my thoughts ended up after the discussion of the Equivalence of EV thread on the poker theory forum.


First of all I’d start with the assertion that against a GTO opponent there are in fact an infinite number of optimal solutions. But only one of those solutions is unexploitable, namely the GTO solution. This seems quite obvious and consistent with the observation that against a non-adaptive player it doesn’t matter which line is taken when the EVs are equivalent.


In the thread linked there is an excellent and simple example presented by whosnext which demonstrates this perfectly.


Player 1 can choose Top/Bottom Player 2 Left Right. There are specific rewards for each player depending on which of the four possible outcomes occurs. The Nash Equilibrium is 70:30 Top/Bottom for Player 1, 40:60 Left/Right for Player 2. The EVs of the two lines within each player’s strategies are equivalent (48/48 and 52/52 respectively). Of course if we freeze Player 2’s strategy, as done in GTO, then clearly Player 1 can choose any distribution and still be optimal. Against a non-adaptive opponent he could freeze at say 90:10 and still have an EV of 48.

As pointed out the EVs at this point are equivalent whichever line the player takes; however, Player 1 is exploitable if Player 2 is unfrozen, except of course at the Nash strategy.

Line frequencies: the simulators care about one metric only, EV. So if the line-frequencies are not arbitrary then they matter because they affect the EV. It is often inferred, it seems, that these frequencies are chosen to avoid exploitation as if this is perhaps some qualitative or meta-metric distinct from EV, but of course it must be translatable into the numbers on the bottom line. As such line-frequencies must determine the EV’s of other lines, otherwise what else is there to affect?


As we see in the above example and was stated in the other thread, the optimal unexploitable mixed strategies exist where lines of EV are equal: i.e. the frequencies that correspond to these line-distributions are requisite for the equality present in the mixed strategies (against an adaptive opponent). In short, line frequencies determine line-EVs.


As for mixed strategies it would be nice to see a proof demonstrate how a mixed strategy of unequal EVs can always be improved upon and so optimisation/unexploitability occurs only with equality of EVs (which would see to be the case). The position that a mixed strategy can always be improved upon by maxing the line with the greater EV holds of course only against a frozen strategy and doesn’t necessarily represent an improvement against an adaptive opponent where moving to a mixed strategy of equal EVs clearly does.


Anyhow, these were my concluding thoughts, until at least I spend some more time on this - I don’t wish to clog up this thread any further as I’m sure there are more interesting subjects from Matthews book to discuss.

Thanks.

I'm not sure. Perhaps I was using a solver or perhaps I thought it was close between 1/2 PSB and 1 PSB and I had to put the range somewhere. Or perhaps it's because I had the BDFD in one example (do I in the other too)?

FWIW I like betting both of those AT examples on the bigger side, but probably not quite a full PSB assuming we're 100BB deep.

Hi Matt,
I just got finished with your new book and have to say I loved it! Before I bought it I watched the interview you with Jnanadez about it. This is ended up leading me to an old Cardrunners video you made where you at 200nl on Bovada (now Ignition). You started the video by saying you were going to use an almost completely exploitative style since everyone is anonymous on the site. I was wondering why this was? I can understand from the standpoint that YOU are completely anonymous, but so is everyone else. Wouldn't playing GTO be the best strategy? Also I wanted to add that these were regular tables an not Zone. Thanks!

Errata on table V:
the range you displayed: 22+, A2s+, A7o+, K2s+, KTo+, Q2s+, QTo+, J7s+,
JTo, T7s+, T9o, 97s+, 98o, 86s+, 75s+, 64s+, 54s, 43s

don't contain 438 but 458



Also table VI contains 192 combos not 198

Hi Matt,
first, I really enjoyed the book, I read it in one day. It gave me a lot of new insights, especially the chapter on the reasons to bet. Although it is a bit difficult for me to apply the concepts OOP as PFA (in single raised and 3bet pots as well). It is clear that we have to choose bet sizes and hands a bit more carefully, because making mistakes here are more costly and easier to exploit then IP.
Our range is usually stronger, but we have the positional disadvantage. Which means we are betting a decent amount, but still have to check a lot. Which is so tough to do in practice.

Are there any thumb rules or thought process to make it a bit easier?

Have you read Applications? It talks about this quite a bit.