You are right there is no binary number and I asked as some pro said after 5 years online poker will not be profitable anymore, I was wondering how did the measure that!

By saying the game becomes less profitable the game becomes less profitable if my skill becomes less stagnant,
I would assume you mean if someone constantly studies the game MTTs will always be profitable!
Am I right?

He pulled the number out of his ass. I say this as a guy who has both voluntarily and sometimes by request been asked to pull numbers out of his ass many times.

He doesn't know, you don't know, and neither do I.

How can anyone know this?

I think it's a safe assumption that on average, players will get better with each passing year. This has happened throughout all of poker history. It's probably naive to think any game/sport will have the average professional get worse over time because technology and training improves.

Whether or not games will always run, much less always be profitable, no one knows. Maybe AI will be so good in 10 years that bots have destroyed the game online. Maybe live poker will have fallen out of flavor and now casinos only run Hearthstone: The Gathering tournaments. No one knows.

Hi,

Im wondering if it makes more sense to split ones range on specific flops into small and big bet sizes (outlined in the book), or if it is better to bet one size with your whole range on the flop and deviate the size for different flops and textures. Due to the fact that the EV of different sizes in rather small?

Depends on skill level.

Multiple bet sizes is higher EV but harder to implement.

Just curious if anyone has any ideas why a solver rarely,if ever recommends checking top pair on a dry board regardless of kicker? The reason for asking is because up until now i have tried to have top pair middling kicker in my check back range so I can have some top pair when i check.

What bet sizes are you allowing?

75%, 33%

Hi Matthew, you say we bet to deny opponent's equity, Does that mean if we give our opponent one free card equal let him realize his equity?
this ignored me a long time, what's the really mean of realizing equity:
I know if we get showdown we realize our equity, but can we say we realize our equity if only see the river community card?

Is this book geared toward online or live poker ?
Thanks

Denying equity really just means making your opponent fold.

Realizing equity means not folding.

So if your opponent opens with Ks8s pre-flop and you 3-bet him and make him fold, you denied his equity. If he calls your 3-bet (even if the call is -EV), he's at least on the path to realize his equity. Granted, you may be able to make him fold the hand later on, but he'll now get to see 3 cards on the flop and if he flops something good he's probably not ever going to fold.

I would say the concepts apply to both online and live, but the reviews/comments in this thread as well as my limited live experience probably mean its geared more towards online than live.

I think you're going to be less likely to ever see software "slow play" the smaller the biggest allowed bet sizing is. For example, why ever check back a set in position on the flop if your opponent will never bet 150%+ PSB on the turn?

It's possible these nuanced differences matter for whether or not to check behind top pair on certain boards. I'm honestly not sure and I'd likely have to spend a fair amount of time (more than just a few minutes, maybe more than a couple of hours) to have a strong opinion on this. I believe I remember PokerSNowie sometime checking behind TPNK on certain boards as part of a mixed strategy, but it's been too long since I've really spent much time with PIOsolver looking into things like this.

Why wouldn't you recommend applications and why would you recommend Hold'em for advanced players instead?

Why do you think Mathematics of poker and applications aren't as useful at lower stakes, Is it simply that the content in both books isn't applicable until you're playing higher stakes?

I'll probably buy all of the above but curious which one you think is the best to start with (currently grinding 16nlz-25nlz)

From your book
Are there any other blatant spots where it's going to be difficult to win money? I'm analyzing my downswing and I want to objectively use PT4 to find out how much action I got overall

Regarding these posts
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...0&postcount=94
And this one
https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...&postcount=101

Let’s say on a given flop, the equilibrium with a hand is to bet 50% and to check 50%, what happens against a GTO player if you check 55% and bet 45%? Your EV will be less than equilibrium right? I know you cannot increase it but you can decrease it…

I think the content is too hard in general in Mathematics of Poker for a beginner. I have a track record of being pretty good but not exceptional at math (800 math SATs, tutored statistics to athletes in college, and a B or A student at college calculus/econometrics/stats) and I found Mathematics of Poker a very hard read. It's still arguably my favorite poker book, but that doesn't change the fact that I found it a hard read.* I've read a few posts by the authors of Mathematics of Poker and I think they might just be so damn good at math that some of the things they think are pretty simple/straight forward aren't unless you're exceptionally gifted and/or educated in math like the authors are. So for those reasons I wouldn't recommend Mathematics of Poker to a beginner, as I think 80%+ would probably go "wtf is this and how is this applicable to NL$10 online or NL$200 live." I think Applications probably has some of the same problems, but to a lesser degree. Additionally, Applications has some stuff in it that's just straight up wrong, which will confuse newer players and likely develop some leaks in their game. Whereas I trust more intermediate and advanced players to just go "Meh this book is old so this part is outdated/wrong" and gain from the good sections without having their game messed up by the bad sections.

I feel more comfortable recommending "No Limit Hold'em For Advanced Players" to just about anyone/everyone who wants to read a poker book that isn't a complete beginner because it's an easier read and their are less errors in it than Applications.

*On a total side note, my good friend and two time online WSOP bracelet winner Jaime Kaplan, who happens to also be an expert at book and snack opinions, finally got me to read "The Three Body Problem" by Cixin Liu. Small sample, but it's my favorite science fiction book ever and probably top 5 favorite book I've ever read. However, I do think at times I think it's a pretty hard read and a bit over the top. So, despite it being my favorite science fiction book, I probably wouldn't recommend it to the average person who asks for a good book to read and is new to science fiction. I think "Mathematics of Poker" and to a smaller extent Applications are similar to this, but for poker. People who like the books are probably going to love them, but a lot of people won't like them at all. But once you have an established interest in science fiction I'm going to go recommend "The Three Body Problem" with full gusto.

Any time you're playing decent/good players and shown a disproportional amount of aggression you're pretty much boned.

If you are facing more 3-bets, flop raises, check-raises, etc and getting substantially less folds on your bets and raises than you should over lets say a 30,000 hand sample, it's going to be very unlikely you'll win money over that sample. Instead, even if you're playing really well you'll likely lose money and feel like you're playing like crap.

So long as you are always taking a line that's part of a mixed strategy, you can do whatever you'd like against a GTO player and still break even (minus the rake). You only lose money against a GTO player when you take a line that isn't the most +EV line or tied for the most +EV line (in the case of a mixed strategy).

One drawback to not making poker videos anymore since its become apparent how many mixed strategies there are in GTO play is that I don't get to quote Happy Gilmore and say: "Bet it, check it, who gives a ****" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWeVbKwrdGs)

Edit: Whoa 2+2 censors the S-word

Is CR video library still available? If not, are your video completely lost?

I get PMed about this once in a while, and from what I've been told originally CardRunners planned to put them on youtube but for the most part did not.

I'm sure some of them are hanging out somewhere in the internet, but I don't know of a place where you can go to find most or even many of them.

Hey Matthew,

Loved the book. Read it after reading through the Grinder's Manual and it's really improved my game for the better, especially in terms of thinking about why to bet/raise, and in thinking about multiple bet sizes. Currently borrowing applications from a friend, what are the sections you think are most useful for someone who has read NLHE for advanced players, along with the Grinder's Manual and 100 Hands? Also, are there any sections that have aged poorly in your opinion (besides pre flop?). I play live 300NL and online 25NL if it makes any difference

Thanks

Should I read the first book Application of no limit hold'em before reading this?

No. And if you have the choice I would actually read this first as it's more up to date. It's also an easier read imo

Pre-flop aged the worse IMO.

You'll probably notice mistakes or stuff that's not "technically" correct in many sections, but I think that's the case with probably almost all poker books that are a few years old. Keep in mind it's also difficult (if not impossible) to explain something clearly without getting bogged down with details while having it remain technically correct.

I'd honestly have to re-read the book to really have a strong opinion of what sections aged the best or worst now, but I think you'll be fine and keep in mind you can just ask me questions in the other book thread if something is confusing.

Matthew wrote, regarding not having betting ranges too strong or weak, “And so long as you’re willing to make both big and small bets with gutshots, flush draws, and 3-to a flush and 3-to a straight type hands, your ranges shouldn’t be easy to exploit.”

1) I notice it does not include straight draws

2) Should we balance these draws over our calling and check calling ranges too?