One that I use is "If you're OOP on a flop where you're gonna get floated or raised very often, don't c-bet at a high frequency or for a large size."
e.g. If you're in MP v BTN, a strong villain's not going to fold on 763tt very often, so most of the combos you c-bet should be able to withstand a raise or be comfortable on the majority of turn cards. (Not much of your range will feel great on any turn card that's a 10 or lower, especially if the flush gets there).
On KT4r, by contrast (a "scarier" board for the pre-flop caller), you have more hands that will have robust equity (e.g. all your Broadways and top pair+) and can generate fold equity by also barreling BDFDs, so you can c-bet that flop more often, and probably for a larger size too.

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!

Glad you like the book.

GTO is extremely hard to implement (it's impossible to implement perfectly, so it's just a matter of how close you can get) and it will only the best strategy against other GTO players.

NL$200 Bovada was very soft when those videos were made. So, good aggressive poker (bet/folding too much, not taking needlessly tricky lines, overbetting when villains range is capped, etc) without much worry about balance or being exploited is likely to be the best strategy at these specific games.

As you move higher and the tables are not anonymous, then balance becomes much more important.

Thanks Matt that makes a lot of sense. The reason I asked is because I wanted to give Ignition a try and wasn't exactly sure how to approach the anonymous tables. Just out of curiosity if you were to play in higher/tougher games, yet still anonymous, would you start to bring GTO into play?

I would just stick to my belief of "the further your line is from GTO, the stronger your read needs to be to justify it" and go from there

Winning Poker Network (Yatahay) -(6 max) - Holdem - 5 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

CO: 105.5 BB (VPIP: 23.53, PFR: 23.53, 3Bet Preflop: 0.00, Hands: 17)
Hero (BTN): 153.5 BB
SB: 196.5 BB (VPIP: 38.71, PFR: 29.03, 3Bet Preflop: 18.18, Hands: 33)
BB: 124 BB (VPIP: 20.65, PFR: 16.17, 3Bet Preflop: 2.67, Hands: 730)
UTG: 89.5 BB (VPIP: 23.42, PFR: 11.85, 3Bet Preflop: 2.99, Hands: 369)

SB posts SB 0.5 BB, BB posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.5 BB) Hero has Q J

fold, fold, Hero raises to 2.5 BB, SB raises to 10 BB, fold, Hero calls 7.5 BB

Flop: (21 BB, 2 players) 5 Q 4
SB bets 15 BB, Hero calls 15 BB

Turn: (51 BB, 2 players) J
SB bets 33 BB, Hero calls 33 BB

River: (117 BB, 2 players) 8
SB bets 138.5 BB and is all-in, Hero calls 95.5 BB and is all-in

Hero shows Q J (Two Pair, Queens and Jacks)
(Pre 64%, Flop 96%, Turn 82%)
SB shows 9 T (Straight, Queen High)
(Pre 36%, Flop 4%, Turn 18%)
SB wins 293 BB

5 BB was deducted from the pot for the jackpot.

Janda should we raise small on the turn to lower the ev of his draws? What do you think about raising the flop with 44 and or 55? I like making a small raise on the turn with a 44 or 55 over QJ your thoughts?

Ty for the excellent discussion, I have now ordered the book. I have applications and got a lot out of it, but the subtitle of tough games and stuff about solvers put me off this one initially.

Raising the flushy turn with 2prs or a set would be pretty bad imo. You've got flushes in your range if you want to play for stacks. 55/44 should raise the flop most of the time.
The river might be a fold, actually, but it's pretty close. You've got flushes, straights (76s), and sets that are higher in your range. 2pr is literally just a bluff-catcher.

For these types of questions I would recommend starting here:

What hands do you think he calls your jam with?

he's getting slightly better the 2-1 odds so yeah where beat if we shove this hand and it would suck to face a 3b jam because unless he is doing it with AxKs we'd have to fold even then were barely getting the right odds to call. I sent you this hand because I had a flash back from when you raised the flop 2.2x with Aq on Qd8c5d after calling sb 3b from co in order to lower his ev with gutshots and the like.

Back to your response only flushes AxAs and sets maybe slightly wider.

Were doing good against his bet folding range if we jammed he folds those hands, and there's only one street left and we can fold if a 4th spade comes.

Thanks for your response yeah I just had a flash back from something I read in Applications lol.. I'm raise some fd's on the flop as well as 4-6 combos of flushes on the turn so I have to call this river giving no reads. If he over bets river then I fold.

Ok, so if you think his calling range is sets/flushes/AxAs, why do we want to jam two-pair into this range rather than call?

FWIW, there CAN be a reason to jam into a range like this with two pair, but it's pretty hard to justify.

Every hand you jam with just insta-wins vs his bet-folding range.

Usually you want to jam with hands that have a low amount of robust equity (so your draws/bluffs) when called, and with hands that can actually beat some of his bet/calling hands (so in this case flushes are the most obvious hand).




Remember, if you call the turn and the river brings the flush and he jams, for all you know that river just saved you your stack since you were already beat. So it's not like you're slowplaying 88 on a 9843 board where the bad rivers can really only improve him. The bad rivers will actually end up saving you here pretty often.

Janda what's your thought process on the turn after your opp checks back the flop when you were planning on check raising? Both as the prf and the cold caller. I tend to mostly check turn again since we now have some marginal flop hands that are strong enough to value bet as well as hands that improved on the turn.

BTW your avatar.. mood changer lol

Matthew Janda:

What would you say is the difference between your book and Sklansky's No Limit Hold 'Em: Theory and Practice?

Can anyone else answer this for me? I have not read his Applications book yet.

I have a few other 2+2 books I'm finishing up. I just want to know the general benefits of this book and the differences it has with Sklansky's NLHE.

So emphasis on tough games?

They are entirely different books written many years apart by people with very different poker and gambling backgrounds.

I bought this over the summer and read it, but i just read it for the second time and it really sunk in. Definitely recommend this book.

Page 111 hand example, where the flop is 776

You recommend checking back A9 because we lose much of our showdown value by betting, and by making villain's range stronger. Also you argue that villain will fold many hands we dominate.

On page 39, you talk about check-raising the A8 on 852 being a good play.

Can you explain how these situations are different? Don't all of the same reasons for checking behind the first hand still apply when considering check-raising the second hand? Is it because A8 usually has more equity when called?

In my mind, I'm thinking, in the A-high example, we usually have the best hand, there are a lot of hands that we can make fold by betting the flop, and if we are called, there are a number of overcards that we can profitably bluff at.

I feel like the A8 checkraise is an interesting idea, but I can't wrap my head around these two disparate thoughts.

Help me realize where my error of thinking is.

Thanks so much for the book, and for your time.

Sad to say that I'm very disappointed in my purchase of this book. I bought the $31 version for my iPad. I've been a successful 2-5 player for decades but thought I'd get something new out of this book, but I felt it was a complete waste of my time. I have purchased and read no less than 12-15 poker books, this one was easily in the bottom 2-3. It doesn't hold a candle to Mason Malmuth's books.

The main problem with this book is it doesn't take into account that no two players play alike. And even worse the author only uses big blind vs button positions as examples in his book.

I hate giving a bad book review but this book wasn't worth the money. I can tell it was written by someone that spent their poker career in front of a computer compared to live poker.

There's very little that applies to full ring 9 player games. It's very rare that 9 handed games end up with big blind vs button and THAT ALL THIS BOOK TALKS ABOUT

It's emphasis is only in big blind vs button strategy. And this author used a computer program to support his game theory hypothesis. Live poker cannot be replicated by computer modeling.

While a live player could probably get something from the book the title does sort of give it away. You don't really need to be an advanced player for live 2-5. A 6max online 10nl game will be more advanced in that sense.

BamaWill, the type of guy to get coaching from otb redbaron and complain it wasn't as good as coaching from Phil Hellmuth.

Oh boy the "live poker is so different a computer guy could never beat it" argument again. Live poker is a joke and anyone who read this book and understood all the concepts illustrated should crush it for absurd amounts. That you are a live 2/5 player and didn't get anything from it says more about where you are in your understanding of the game than the value of the book.