No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion - Page 24 - Books and Publications

Amin70 · 08-19-2018, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Janda

It's not like it's a binary thing where MTT's go from being "profitable" to "not profitable" at some threshold. In all likelihood, each year games will become a bit less profitable if your skill remains stagnant. Hence my long winded post about what's "profitable enough" to make it worth your time, which really comes down to opportunity cost, how much you enjoy poker, what country you're from, how much you value immediately being able to earn and how much you can stomach delayed gratification, etc.

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?

Matthew Janda · 08-19-2018, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amin70

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!

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amin70

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?

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.

Guurrbb · 08-21-2018, 08:15 PM

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?

Matthew Janda · 08-22-2018, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guurrbb

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.

Guurrbb · 09-05-2018, 08:32 AM

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.

Matthew Janda · 09-10-2018, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guurrbb

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?

Guurrbb · 09-13-2018, 08:42 AM

75%, 33%

jasonhau · 09-18-2018, 04:31 PM

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?

jungmit · 09-18-2018, 10:39 PM

Is this book geared toward online or live poker ?
Thanks

Matthew Janda · 09-19-2018, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonhau

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?

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.

Matthew Janda · 09-19-2018, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jungmit

Is this book geared toward online or live poker ?
Thanks

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.

Matthew Janda · 09-19-2018, 06:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guurrbb

75%, 33%

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.

TurboTard · Today, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by itaba

Kindle edition is still $35.00 USD equivalent to my local currency (Im from México). Im a CAP 20bb reg learning to play 100bb poker. I read twice Grinders manual and im thinking buy NL Holdem for advanced players, but i dunno i will start playing from NL25, maybe the book is advanced for the stakes. Should i buy it?, the book have concepts for NL25-50 onlinemetagame?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Janda

I'd recommend NLHE for advanced players for someone in your situation but wouldn't recommend Applications. That said again it's hard to say this with too much certainty until I get more reviews/feedback for the new book, but I think you're good.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by thisisjimmybruv

Will this book be valuable to someone like myself playing 10nl (by choice for a long time) will I be able to take anything from this and apply it to my game disregarding which limit I play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matthew Janda

Yeah you should be good. In general I think most poker books will be more valuable the lower you play, though there are a few exceptions (Mathematics of Poker for example, and maybe Applications and a few others).

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)