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 11-04-2017, 10:22 AM   #401
tuccotrading
adept
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,077
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoffcompletely View Post
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.
True.
tuccotrading is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2017, 04:58 PM   #402
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 841
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by BamaWillBG View Post
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.
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.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2017, 05:03 PM   #403
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 841
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chaos_ult View Post
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.

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.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2017, 07:14 PM   #404
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 841
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

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.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2017, 07:20 PM   #405
mrno1324
veteran
 
mrno1324's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2,077
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

why 87 of all 8x?
mrno1324 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2017, 07:44 PM   #406
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 841
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrno1324 View Post
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.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2017, 09:41 PM   #407
getmeoffcompletely
adept
 
getmeoffcompletely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,028
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

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.
getmeoffcompletely is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-04-2017, 11:46 PM   #408
ArtyMcFly
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ArtyMcFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Enchantment Under the Sea
Posts: 7,615
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

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.
ArtyMcFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2017, 08:43 AM   #409
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 841
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoffcompletely View Post
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.
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.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2017, 03:35 AM   #410
sirin
old hand
 
sirin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: ou sont les regs d'antan
Posts: 1,691
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

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.
sirin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2017, 09:28 PM   #411
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 841
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by sirin View Post
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.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2017, 09:57 AM   #412
O No GTO
stranger
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 8
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

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?
O No GTO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2017, 11:06 AM   #413
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 841
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by O No GTO View Post
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.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-15-2017, 08:37 PM   #414
O No GTO
stranger
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 8
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Janda View Post
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?
O No GTO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-16-2017, 11:13 AM   #415
getmeoffcompletely
adept
 
getmeoffcompletely's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,028
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

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.
getmeoffcompletely 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 06:16 AM.


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