Two Plus Two Publishing LLC Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Books and Publications Discussion and reviews of books, videos, and magazines. Sponsored by TwoPlusTwoStore.com.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-04-2017, 08:27 PM   #351
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 820
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by +VLFBERH+T View Post
Trying to get my head around this My understanding is that if I play vs an optiomal (GTO) opponent and deviate from a GTO strategy, I lose EV ... does deviating from GTO frequencies not equal deviating from the GTO strategy? I'm gladly going to try to understand where I am wrong here
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.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-04-2017, 09:20 PM   #352
Re8uZ
adept
 
Re8uZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 865
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Janda View Post
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
Re8uZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2017, 06:04 AM   #353
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 820
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Re8uZ View Post
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.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2017, 06:34 AM   #354
Re8uZ
adept
 
Re8uZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 865
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

i see ty
Re8uZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2017, 11:17 AM   #355
ArtyMcFly
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ArtyMcFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Enchantment Under the Sea
Posts: 7,501
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by +VLFBERH+T View Post
Trying to get my head around this My understanding is that if I play vs an optiomal (GTO) opponent and deviate from a GTO strategy, I lose EV ... does deviating from GTO frequencies not equal deviating from the GTO strategy? I'm gladly going to try to understand where I am wrong here
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.
ArtyMcFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2017, 02:25 PM   #356
Maroel
centurion
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 106
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtyMcFly View Post
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!
Maroel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2017, 02:26 PM   #357
Maroel
centurion
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 106
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtyMcFly View Post
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.
You should release a book "Poker GTO for dummies who struggle with MOP"

I would buy it
Maroel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2017, 02:54 PM   #358
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 820
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

I really should have to pay to keep you on retainer for this thread ArtyMcFly.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2017, 04:34 PM   #359
+VLFBERH+T
grinder
 
+VLFBERH+T's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: at the crossroads
Posts: 542
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Makes total sense to me now. My thanks to you as well, Arty
+VLFBERH+T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2017, 07:24 AM   #360
Fatboy54
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,347
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

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.
Fatboy54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2017, 12:09 PM   #361
ArtyMcFly
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ArtyMcFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Enchantment Under the Sea
Posts: 7,501
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

@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.
ArtyMcFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2017, 02:11 PM   #362
mrfunnywobbl
journeyman
 
mrfunnywobbl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Sentient Ant Colony
Posts: 346
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

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
mrfunnywobbl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2017, 03:51 PM   #363
Fatboy54
veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,347
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

@Arty

Cheers matey...that confirms what I suspected.

Quote:
Villain's post-flop tendencies should guide your pre-flop decisions, I should think.
Absolutely.
Fatboy54 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2017, 08:50 AM   #364
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 820
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrfunnywobbl View Post
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
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).
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2017, 08:53 AM   #365
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 820
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by ArtyMcFly View Post
@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.
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.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2017, 11:23 AM   #366
Dan.Almeida
newbie
 
Dan.Almeida's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 23
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

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?
Dan.Almeida is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2017, 12:26 PM   #367
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 820
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan.Almeida View Post
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.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2017, 03:21 PM   #368
Dan.Almeida
newbie
 
Dan.Almeida's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 23
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Janda View Post
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!
Dan.Almeida is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-11-2017, 12:10 PM   #369
Husker
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Husker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Holsten's Diner
Posts: 10,625
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

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?
Husker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-2017, 11:49 AM   #370
AbsurdHero
newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 19
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

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.
AbsurdHero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2017, 02:48 PM   #371
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 820
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Husker View Post
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?
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.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 02:17 AM   #372
Pairadiddle
stranger
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

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!
Pairadiddle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 06:09 AM   #373
4-Star General
adept
 
4-Star General's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 997
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

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
4-Star General is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2010, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online