True.

You're of course entitled to your opinion, and for this reason I would never respond to your Amazon review, but I think it's appropriate for me to respond here since this is more of a discussion than review thread:

#1) Button vs big blind examples were chosen because I only care about the reader understanding concepts from this book, I don't care about any specific hand. Every concept that needs a hand example can be illustrated in button vs big blind examples, and with these ranges you get the widest ranges which usually makes for more interesting examples when talking ranges.

#2) The "No-Limit hold em for advanced players" with "Emphasis on tough games" means we're playing against good players. The better player are, the closer we need to play to GTO. For GTO play, you simply don't get multiway spots all that frequently, and if you do the lines you'll take in multiway pots against GTO villains will be very, very different from the most +EV line vs NL$500 live players.

#3) Your amazon review sounds like you're just pretty biased against GTO/internet poker. You gave the same review there as you did here for the most part only there you added "I can tell it was written by a 20-something internet poker kid." This would be like me reviewing a book written by a live player and saying "You can tell this book was written by a live plays 20- hands-an-hour geezer." I'm probably not approaching a live poker book with a very open mind if I make that statement.

#4) All the concepts here are hugely relevant to live play. I've coached a NL$1000/NL$2000 live player before for a long period of time. He regularly implemented these concepts as well as concepts from Applications (which is a much more abstract and difficult read than this one) and didn't know many of the concepts in NLHAP before hiring me for coaching (and this is after he was already beating NL2000 live). So I'm very skeptical a live NL$500 player really already knew all the concepts in this book rather than was just dismissive of new content, especially given point #3.

So I think you can break these all down into either "denying equity" or "making the pot bigger in case you win," but arguments for check-raising the A8:

#1) People CB this flop like crazy (both in theory and practice), and A8 is ahead the vast majority of the time.

#2) Since top-pair is so long with the A8 example and gutters are present (often with an overcard), everytime we CR and get a fold we deny tons of equity, usually from hands that we don't have dominated.

#3) If you properly balance a flop CR range (sets, A8, air, probably some 87 too though the book didn't go into this), then it's pretty hard for villain to 3-bet 100BB deep so long as you have enough sets in your range. So the way our A8 CR would really get wrecked would be to face a 3-bet from JJ-99 isn't likely to happen so long as our range has enough sets.

#4) By mixing our CR range with sets, A8, air, and probably some 87 we actually can re-balance our turn range where we're not just nuts/air. So this allows us to play a check-call or small betting game on the turn too on pretty much any turn card. Now granted, a super polarized range is better than a range that's not super polarized, but if we super polarize our flop check-raising range with just sets/air we can't check-raise at as high of a frequency as sets/air/A8/87 and we want our flop CR range higher if possible for obvious exploitative reasons (people CB too much in general and play worse against a check-raise than check-call) but it's also important theoretically for denying lots of equity and building pots with strong/vulnerable hands.


I gotta go but I'll continue this later.

Ok, so the above shows why I like CR the A8 example.

The problem with CB A9 on the 776 board I think is as follows:

#1) You make a lot of hands you dominate fold
#2) You ruin the showdown value of your hand, which is actually pretty high against villains checking range but much lower against his check-calling range.
#3) You're quite vulnerable to being check-raised.
#4) If you CB all your hands your CB frequency may start pushing 100%, which can be pretty problematic against an aggressive CR strat.

SO for these reasons (as well as reasons already stated elsewhere like in the book) I prefer check, even though I don't think a CB is terrible or anything. Let me know if anything is still unclear.

why 87 of all 8x?

Strongest 87 that doesn't' have an overcard to top-pair

Edit: Also should be noted that this addition was not my own, but another player suggested this in a different e but similar example and I'm extrapolating here. I'll probably talk about this a bit more in a future time.

Weak top pairs that connect to backdoor straights are definitely raised some % of the time in optimal play. Same for middle and bottom pairs. Using the same 8h5s2c example a nutty hand to use as a check raise is As2s due to removal effects to tptk & bottom set plus all the backdoor draws that will let you efficiently barrel turns and rivers or go into check call or check raise mode. 5c4c would be another good example.

If you pick the right sizing and balance your range correctly, you could also check-raise QTs/JTs/J9s/T9s with BDFDs. With a half-pot check-raise size, you can put all kinds of stuff into your range: sets, two pairs, top/middle/bottom pair, gutshots, OESDs, overcards with backdoors. Mixed strategies mean almost everything is permitted.
A pot-sized check-raising range would need to be more polarized though, and top pair probably doesn't belong in such a range, since it does much worse against a continuance range OOP in a big pot.

I also wonder how much As2s and 5c4c are raises just because it's hard for us to make trips on a 5x or 2x turn (but pretty easy for villain) so we get paid very well when we do hit.

Hi,

Page thirty, the reasons for having a mixed cbet/check strategy with K4 on a J92 board:

"If we bet all our flush draws on the flop, then we'd probably have too many flushes in our range if a heart came on the turn after we bet the flop. Likewise, if we bet all our flush draws and then a heart came after we checked, we'd have no flushes in our range if the turn came a heart".

I understand the second part - we need to have flushes in our check back range otherwise we can be easily exploited.

But I don't quite grasp the bolded part. Would this be a problem in and of itself, or is it only because of what it implies for the rest of our range?

Having a lot of flushes when a flush card comes doesn't seem bad to me but maybe I'm missing something. The way I see it when a heart comes we can still bluff with straight draw combos that missed.

Obviously I'm not advocating betting all our flush draws, I'm just trying to make sure that I'm 100% following everything here.

When you have too many flushes in your range, you don't get paid enough for holding a flush as villain just folds too much.

Questions at the end.

Janda in your new book you mention that Snowie prefers to raise with AhJc after flatting calling co from btn on Ts5h4h. In your first book you prefer to call AsJx on 8d3s4s after flatting co open from btn.

What's your play now and why? On the 834 flop we do keep a few more dominating hands in our opponents bet folding range then we do on the T54 flop but is this enough of a reason to choose flatting AJ with backdoor nfd when's its such as good hand to raise with?

I don't even probably flat AJo pre-flop readless unless I think the table is really soft.

As played I would definitely raise since I think the raise makes sense in theory and people bet/fold too much.

You don't even flat Ajo on btn vs co open how come? I Like to flat with it and 3b Ato. I understand that players call 3b a lot oop compared to 4b so emphasis on high card hands like Aj Aq and 99 TT should be placed and also because the blinds can squeeze a lot. Aj does do better in lower psr spots. I can start to see why flatting is part of a mixed strategy just like most other spots, its just that the frequency which to do so is dependent on the player and game dynamic.

What ratio of flatting to 4bing do you want out of your opp in order to go thinner for value 3b? I play 400nl 6max and players 4b between 30-40% of there defending range when oop vs 3b. Also if the blinds cold 4b over 10% combined should we now move Ajo back to the flatting range vs say a 2.5x co opening the standard 25-30% range?

The reality is that you're simply not going to get any strong theoretical answers about in position 3betting. The tools are just not there to solve those spots and because you're dealing with 3 other players in the hand you have to make all sorts of assumptions and guesses. And even if we could get the answers, medium strength hands like AJ would almost surely be mixed. In the end it's not something that's worth wasting too much time on, but as a default it's probably better to go with the aggressive action because the pop plays worse facing aggression.

Hi Matt - really enjoyed your book. In hand example 5 for BTN vs BB flop play (AsTd4s), how would you play your pocket pairs? KK seems like an obvious check, but would you consider betting small with JJ? What about QQ? And I assume we want to check all our pocket pairs 99 and lower and hope to get to showdown (and likely fold vs any bets from BB unless we improve)?

Is there any merit to betting a hand like 22 purely for equity denial? I feel like it can almost never get to showdown and win if we try to check it down (BB will basically always bluff at some point if they have worse), but it's still often the best hand on the flop.

^ In that spot, Snowie likes potting it with 47% of its range. It always checks KK-77, always bets 33/22, sometimes bets some combos of 66/55 with the flush blocker/backdoor.
If you use a smaller sizing for your range, or use multiple sizes for different parts of your range, the strategies are much more mixed. e.g. You can put KK-JJ into a "small bet range" (and have a much higher c-betting frequency overall) if you really want to.

That's really interesting - does it tell you the difference in EV between potting 33/22 and checking them back? I don't think they make a great bet, but I suspect they play so poorly when checked that the EV could still be significantly better as a bet. I wonder if the potential to runner runner a straight is important.

The EV difference, according to Snowie, is actually insignificant. Assuming 100NL and a half pot open, such that the pot is 5bb when BB calls, Snowie says the EV of checking 33 (with a flush blocker/backdoor as well as the backdoor SD) is 1.47bb. Potting it increases the EV to 1.50bb. (A whole 3% of one big blind improvement!) For a half pot bet, it's indifferent at 1.47bb for a bet or check, so the strat for 33 at that size is mixed.
Just for comparison's sake, if you use Snowie's recommended sizing (pot) for your range, it gives the EV of checking back KK at 2.81bb, and betting only wins 2.39bb, so checking is considerably better than potting it. If you go with quarter pot, then betting KK gets that same 2.81bb EV that you could get by checking and the strat is again mixed. So you may as well always check back kings.
Something like KJs (combo draw) has an EV of greater than pot if you bet, and checking back would be passing up almost a big blind of EV, so that's a mandatory c-bet.
To put it another way, 33 is so weak that you're not winning much whatever you do, so it's not a blunder to just give up immediately. Apart from misclick folding with the nuts, the biggest mistake you can make on that AT4 board is to check back middle set. Betting TT has an EV of more than twice the pot (while checking nets about 8.5bb), so it's crucial you make that bet, but the bet with 33 is marginal at best.
This is all quite obvious, I guess, but I wouldn't worry about making a small mistake with an underpair on that board. I'd just want to make sure I make the right play with the monster hands, bluffcatchers and draws, since those have more EV at stake.

Cool, makes sense. Thanks for the detailed response!

Generally, he won't c-bet hands that won't get enough dominated action.

Personally, I think about the opponent's range and the board type, so I might c-check some top pairs also (poor flop perhaps), and maybe half of the overcards, using a hard rule of the above and it is closer to the 1st book than to the 2nd book.

To me the size is usually a matter of stack sizes, flop types, and I don't make a problem out of it, but you are free to, and it is based on getting enough dominated action and protecting the hand rather than needing to c-check more often -- that possibly gets busted by (up to) 6 outers in the opponent's hand too often.

Wrong witch on p.104.

Epic addition to the poker canon. Well done.

Thanks man that means a lot.

Keep in mind I live in 'merica and don't currently grind, but.........

While trying to play GTO is great and your default strat should be GTO solid lines, if a line seems close I'd emphasize the line that plays better when your opponent screws up. So, it makes sense to bet 22 for equity denial and for the reasons Arty already said. Especially if your opponent (Snowie in Arty's case) isn't going to let you check down and win with 22. But while Snowie might have you win by checking down dueces 0% percent of the time, the average opponent at your given limit may let you win sometimes by deciding not to bluff with his total garbage even if that's not GTO. So I don't mind the check with 22 at all.

As for the JJ on the AT3, I'd probably bet it but bet relatively small against most players since both betting and checking seem fine (so long as the flop bet isn't too big) and people tend to play worse against bets than checks. KK I would check. Betting 99 seems bad to me.