+!

Mr. Janda. First of all, great book! Awesome! I never read Applications, but I ordered because of this book. In your example of check raising the A8o on the 8-5-2r flop, if you’re playing against a donkey who may or may not be wearing an adult diaper who will button raise a hand like Q2 or Q5 off and call your check raise 100% of the time with second or third pair all the way down in hopes of spiking a Queen for two pair, do you reduce how frequently you make this play to avoid bloating the pot with one pair type hands? Thanks in advance.

Why wouldn't you want to make the pot bigger against a weak player with a very weak range? Might be worthwhile for you to think about that a bit and post the answer here as there may be some hiccup in your thought process.

I think it's also worse pointing out, that I think I originally wrote in the book that after you CR A8 on a 852 board, it's reasonable to check on a 9 turn (or any turn you think is bad for your range, you don't have to keep betting). During editing, David correctly pointed out though that these bad turns may not require you to check but instead you can just bet very small (1/4 PSB, or even smaller). Sure in theory there's almost certainly many mixed strategies and each line would need to be balanced, but my point if you think villain is bad with a wide range, don't be afraid to check-raise now and then then check (or bet very small) on turn cards you don't think are particularly good.

I guess I was missing the rationale for the check raise. I thought you wanted it to provide you some fold equity as many turn cards are bad for you regarding weak players who will call with things like unimproved over cards.

Thought it was a pretty good read. NLHE4AP provides a framework for approaching self-studying modern theory.

You both want fold equity and you like the fact that they can call the CR when they're behind.

Example: Imagine you had KQ and the flop was Ks7s4d. If you knew your opponent had a flush draw, you'd probably check-raise. If they fold, cool beans, now you denied lots of equity. If they called, cool beans, you're ahead and will win more often than not.

Yes, but with a pair of kings you’re not too worried about the turn unless it completes a straight or flush. However, with the pair of 8s I feel there are a lot more turn cards that you don’t feel comfortable with.

Hey Matthew,

I read your new book! Thanks for this good work!
in the book you mentioned that some points were also in David slansky book
Like giving a free card!
Do you think is it beneficial to read theory of poker by Slansky or should I jump straight away to application of poker book straight away ?


Regards

Hey Janda was wondering if in 3b pots oop with 7+spr do you like to defend checks more or still cb around the same frequency since will usually have an equity advantage like 57-43? Does anything change much if its like 52-48? I'm aware that it depends on things like nut advantage and if its a board where we want to deny a lot of equity on but just want your thoughts. Thanks much

I'd start with theory of poker before application.

I don't think application is a good "first book" for almost anyone.

Well you always have to defend a reasonable amount of checks or else your opponent will have an incentive to bet just about everything (if not literally everything) once you check to him.

I'm not anywhere nearly good enough to recognize what board has a 53% equity advantage relative to 52% equity advantage or how my range would adjust for each. And as you already pointed out, a lot more is at play that just equity advantage anyways.

Its 57% compared to 52% ex: we 3b Co oop from bb on a K85 board we'd have 57% as the pfr whereas on a J67 board we'd have like 52%. But yeah I just want to understand enough b4 I go ham with the sims and solver work.

Hi,
Sorry if the question was already answered.
Whats the differences between the two books:
- "Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em"
- "No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced"


Should I read both ? or the second one is a kind of update ?
And what would be the reading order?

Honestly I think you just should jump into the solvers. They're much more precise or accurate than anything I can tell you will be.

Especially since it's not just about the absolute equity, but also the distribution of equity, SPR, etc.

I think if you ever find yourself not defending much checks, then you need to be betting OOP less to strengthen your checking range (unless you already have a 0% OOP bet range, like after calling a min-raise in the BB).

First book is more primitive in the sense that it was more "armchair theory" as we didn't have solvers. It was probably more ahead of its time than No-LImit Hold em for Advanced players was/is, but also has more inaccuracies and information that can be updated.

No limit hold em for advanced players is more accurate and more clearly written IMO. It builds off the first book a bit, but you definitely don't need to read the 1st book to enjoy the 2nd.

I think you can read either book first. I'd personally recommend starting with No Limit Hold Em for Advanced players first.

Thanks a lot for your answer!

When counting combos to work out whether you are high enough in your range to make a call on the river based off minimum defence frequency, how do you go about this? where do you start in your value range?

Also is it more efficient to count my combos or my opponents combos and decide where my hand is good enough to call based off pot odds?

Starting at the top would be a good idea.
If villain makes a bet and you want to call with 50% of your range, it would make sense to call with the 50% that has the most chance of winning.

I understand that but how do I know where the top 50 percent ends and goes into the fold range

Only way to know where the top 50% ends is to memorize your range and count.

Also, keep in mind in river situations where you're bluffing catching, the removal effect might be more important than whether or not your hand is a top or bottom 50% hand (I'm sticking with your assumption that your opponent made a PSB and you wanted to defend 50% to keep him indifferent to bluffing.)

Yeah I started using GTO+. Is there any solvers you recommend over another? I also started using snowie a little while back, I like the fact that a lot of what it does is more applicable since most players are weak.

It was a couple weeks ago when reading the following section and I can't find it now but I believe the concept was: we want to bet bigger with made hands that have outs than made hands that have zero or few outs. But I've been inclined to do the opposite.
My example:
Board: Th9h3h2x.

Hero Hand1: AhTx
Hero Hand2: AxTx

I usually bet hand2 bigger than hand1 because it's more important to deny equity with a more vulnerable hand2. Why is this incorrect?

Matt, do you do private coaching or are you ever available for a one-on-one conversation? If yes, what is the best way to reach out to you?

I coach a few people who've reached out to me through word of mouth, mostly Brazilian tourney players. Best way to reach me for this is PM.

The book stresses often betting bigger (but not always) with more vulnerable hands to deny equity.