^^ Nevermind I think I found my answer as I went through this whole thread.

you the real mvp

I confused about some math. I have the first addition third print. In part two chapter "Examining Complex Ranges- Defending Enough Against Opens," page 61, there is this equation to get the frequency of how often btn will get 3bet, and to solve it you have to know how often the blinds would 3bet. say SB 3bet 16% and BB 14%.

And this is whats in the book:

0.278 = 0.16 + (0.84)(0.14)

On the page before is the same situation, finding frequency of btn facing a 3bet. where each blinds 3bet 12.5% each.

0.234 = 1 - (0.875)^2

so it looks like:

1 - (freq of SB not 3betting)(freq of BB not 3 betting)

So why is it so different on the next page? why is it 0.16 + (0.84)(0.14)?

shouldnt it be:

2.776 = 1 - [(1 - 0.16)(1 - 0.14]) ???

Can someone also explain how this equation? 0.16 + (0.84)(0.14)?

i think there is also a typo on the same page which got the math wrong. This equation deals with finding freq of blinds calling where SB calls 8% and BB calls 20%.

0.217 =(0.08)(0.86) + (0.2)(0.74)
where:
0.86 = fraction of time BB does not 3bet
0.74 = fraction of time SB fold to BTN open

But SB 3bet 16% & calls 8% for a total of 0.24, so Sb actually fold 0.76 of the time.

The two equations equal to the same result.

Given events A and B, the probability at least one happens is

P(A or B) = 1- P(not A)*P(not B) = P(A)+ P(not A)* P(B),

assuming the events are independent.

I'm a bit confused with the use of "strong" and "weak" in the section on Linear, Condensed and Polarized Ranges.

For instance, MJ says that a common condensed range example is a check-call by the BB on the flop. This shows that BB has a condensed range because BB "would have raised most or all of his strong hands rather than risk giving a cheap card which can result in him being outdrawn or losing his action."

It seems like "strong" here refers to equity.

However, later, in the subsection on polarized ranges, MJ says that "good players must also raise some weak hands with robust equity."

Does "weak hands with robust equity" mean "hands with weak equity that is also robust (i.e. stays at the same level of weakness)?"

Any clarity on this would be much appreciated.

Weak hands with robust equity tend to be those that won't win at showdown if they check-call down unimproved, but that have a reasonable number of 'outs' vs hands like top pair, so can be used as semi-bluffs, or 'protection' raises. Examples of weak hands with robust equity include bottom pair + BDFD, and gutshots. e.g. If you have 76s on T82r, you have basically no showdown value, because 7-high won't win if you check-call down. But you also have a gutshot with at least 4 outs vs Tx+, and it will still have at least 4 outs on the turn (sometimes it picks up a BDFD or a pair as well). That makes it a decent candidate for a check-raise on the flop, because its equity is robust.
On the same T82r board, bottom pairs like A2s also have some "robust equity", as they have 5 outs to two pairs or trips, but are unlikely to win unimproved, so can be used as check-raises for protection/equity denial/semi-bluff.
Where Janda describes a hand as "strong" or "weak", I tend to think of it in terms of its immediate or made strength. Bottom pair top kicker is a made hand, but it's a weak made hand, but it has a few outs to a pretty strong hand, in the same way that 7-high is a very weak hand (it wouldn't win if the hand stopped on the flop), but has "robust" potential to make a strong one on later streets. Mid-strength hands on a mono flop would be things like top or middle pair. You wouldn't want to play a big pot with those, since they'd only get a lot of action from flushes and flush draws.

Polarized ranges predominantly feature strong hands that are already so good that they can be bet/raised for value, expecting to win a big pot on most runouts, and those strong made hands are balanced by weak hands that have a decent chance of becoming strong. e.g. On a monotone flop, flushes are strong, and anything with the ace of the suit is just ace high at the moment, but has a draw to the nuts. So a polarized betting/raising range on a mono flop would be flushes and nut flush draws.

The terms "bluff" and "value bet" are frequently very subjective on every street, except for the river.

So I now use the terms "weak hand" and "strong hand" instead of "bluff" and "value bet" when I remember.

There's no threshold when a hand on the flop or turn becomes good enough to go from being a weak hand to strong hand, just like there's no threshold for when a hand goes from being a "bluff" to "value bet'.

But on a K 73 board, I think most people can agree AK is a strong hand, 88 is a medium strength hand, and 98 is a weak hand with robust equity (since it is only 9 high and doesn't have much equity, but it can backdoor the nuts or near nuts).

Hi, All. I've been grappling with a couple of concepts for the last couple of days and could really use some help from the community here.

First, MJ says that when given a mixed strategy, both lines have the exact same EV. However, programs like PokerSnowie often quote mixed strategies with percentages (i.e. 80% raise and 20% fold). What keeps getting me is that if both of these lines (separately) have the same EV, then there's really no point to quoting the percentage (or even mixing the strategy at all). My understanding is that raising and folding in this example separately have different EVs than the combination of 80% raise/20% fold. This is because, against a strong opponent, the mixed strategy is not exploitable where the "pure" strategy is. In other words, I don't really know what MJ means by "each line." Isn't there only ONE line (i.e. the MIXED line)? I feel like I'm missing something about MJ's explanation here.

Second, there is one phrase from the answer to Question 1 in Part 3 (Why We Bet and Raise) that I am not sure I understand. MJ says "hands which make the best checks are those which have non-robust equity and aren't worried about being outdrawn." My understanding of this phrase is as follows:

1. Non-robust equity disappears as the opponent's range strengthens.
2. Opponent's range can be strengthened by drawing a favorable card on a subsequent street OR by calling a bet on this street.
3. If opponent can't draw a favorable card on a subsequent street, then the only way to strengthen his range is by calling a bet.
4. So don't bet.

Is this the right way to understand MJ's comment?

Thanks for all of the helpful discussion so far. And MJ thanks for helping out your readers here in the forums!

Whenever GTO mixes it means you could pick either option at any frequencies you like against a GTO bot and break even, as all mixed options have the same EV at equilibirum.
But if you tried that vs a strong HS player you would get wrecked by exploits.

Still working my way through the book, but would it be accurate to use the following heuristics for the two bet/raise criteria?

1. In determining "how well" a hand denies equity, we should consider the differential between the equity of our own hand (or range, perhaps) and the equity of the opponent's range. The lower my equity is compared to opponent's the better my hand/range satisfies this criterion.

2. In determining "how well" a hand builds up the pot "in case we win," it is critical again to compare our equity to opponent's equity. In addition, bet sizing seems critically important here as well. This is due to the "in case we win" part of the criterion. If my opponent's equity is below the odds laid by a very small bet size, betting this my hand does not really satisfy this criterion well. If, on the other hand, opponent has a decent draw (e.g. a 25% draw or better maybe), he might call a bet and I still get paid out the vast majority of the time for building up the pot. So in other words, as long as opponent's equity is large enough to sustain a significant bet AND my equity is larger than his, I should be able to properly size a bet that meets this criterion well.

Does this make sense?

Thanks, mrno. I did not get that at all. Yes, I was thinking of what happens if we deviate from the mix against an exploiting player.

I still think this begs the question of why percentages are quoted in a mixed strategy. If the percentages don't matter against a GTO bot, then they matter for avoiding exploitation, right? So, I guess in light of your comment, you can take each line separately against a GTO bot, but you have to stick to the correct mix (i.e. there is only ONE line - the one indicated by the percentages) against an exploiting opponent.

No, there is one mixed strategy that incorporates multiple lines, split into different frequencies.
This is just a semantics thing, nothing profound here.

Yes, exactly.

I'm mostly removed from poker at this point but rarely coach (mostly just old students who have questions or want to do a touch-up type lesson) and this is why with the exception of a single student, I almost always recommend taking the easier line when two lines seems very close and/or part of mixed strategies.

So say you bust out the ol' poker Snowie and it says a continuation bet and the mythical double-check raise have the same EV. Just..... CB it bro. There is ONE student I have who goes out of his way to take the harder lines, using the logic that in addition to providing balance the harder lines will be the lines his opponents have less experience against and they're more likely to make mistakes (which I think is a fair point), but unless you are in the top 0.0X% of players, I think your results will be better if you mostly emphasize the easier lines.

There are plenty of difficult lines that aren't part of mixed strategies (knowing when to make very small or very large bets, knowing when a removal effect is a big deal, or make a very aggressive CR with a strong but vulnerable hand) that I don't think you need to go looking for the harder lines in the mixed strategy places unless you're very good (again, top 0.0X% player who makes a very comfortable living playing poker professionally).

I am going through the book but I am stuck at a hand example. The hand is 7h7c6s. In this example you say that you wouldn’t bet 88, 99, TT and A6 citing concerns over getting check raised. To me this is a non explanation. Don’t we fear getting check raised every time we bet and don’t have the nuts?! I contrasted this hand with the previous example: 8d7s2c where you recommend betting big with 99 and TT. I put both hands into Snowie and snowie aggrees with you. In the 776 hand snowie bets 0.5 pot with 99 and 2x pot in the 872 hand. I also looked at hand strenght in snowie. In both hands the hand strenght after the BB check on the flop is 1.5. However after betting 2x the pot in the 776 hand the hand strenght is 1,14, while in the 872 hand 1,33. To me this says that betting big would fold out way too many weaker hands in villain’s range in the 776 hand. Am I correct and how does this fit in with the two criteria for betting. We don’t bet big because we are not likely enough to win, so building up the pot is counter productive and or we can’t fold out enough equity to deserve a big bet? Could you ellaborate more on the differences between these hands? Thanks in advance!

I am happy for the players who are beating online poker who live in very poor countries!

Yes... for some of them, even 10 dollars an hour is a huge amount if money... life changing. And they can aspire to a high hourly over time. They live the poker dream.

Good for these players!!!

Theory/Situation Question:

What should I be thinking about on the flop as the in-position aggressor in a SRP pot facing a caller from either the SB or BB when I flop an Ace high three flush?

Examples:

AJ in the cutoff on a flop of 239ss with the suited ace

AJs in the cut off on a flop of 239 with one flush card on the flop

There are many different situations possible, such as only one over card, different preflop raise sizes, positions, how we build our total ranges, etc... but I have heard conflicting ideas.

There's no way I can answer this better here than it's just explained in the books.

I would always bet rather than check if it looks close since betting makes the hand easier to play and people often (but not always) play worse against aggression than you being passive. BB's range is also usually garbage and BB's don't usually check-raise enough, so I would have a very high CB %.

Thank you.

Sometimes being reminded of something,, or even hearing it put in a slightly different way, is helpful-- at least for me.

And among the believable posters, you are one of the best explainers.

My general rule (supported by Snowie) is that on monotone flops when you're in position as the PFR, you should c-bet at a high frequency, for a small size.

It's even better when you have the ace of the suit, because you have the key card that means villain never has the nuts, and he fears that you have it... which means you can aggressively bet and barrel. Your bluffs with the nut blocker will serve to balance your actual flushes.

Hi Matthew,
Thank you for both book wich are great because thanks of your help we can understand why to bet and have a really better understanding of poker.

i'm a recreative player and when i bought application it took me 1 month to read and 1 year to study.... Now i'm on the advanced wich is totally different from the application and i really enjoy it as well, i read it all but now i'm starting study the Advanced.

As you said you started Tournament... have you thought to write one book just about tournament ?

Awesome, glad to hear it and best of luck.

Never say never, but I doubt it. I don't want to produce lackluster content and I don't really have a ton I want to write about right now (definitely not enough to produce an entire book), and I think it's unlikely I ever will. I do miss writing though and if there were two great tourney players writing a book and they wanted a third person to hop on board to write some theory related stuff, or something like that, then I'd consider it, but I think something like that happening is very unlikely.

Hey Matt,

I’d like to get your opinion about online poker still being relatively unavailable to most Americans. Yes there are sites like ACR, etc. but from what I see and hear amongst most the live American poker community is that those who play on sites such as ACR and the like are at least semi-serious about poker vs your avg joe/fish who stays away, mostly due to uncertainty of playing on an unregulated site. If/when regulation goes into effect for the US, even if state-by-state, do you think there will be an increased opportunity to crush online? Say for a few months, years, or maybe not at all?

I ask bc im a regular 6max $200NL player on WSOP.com and imo these games are very “bad reg” heavy, with a few fish/whales thrown in. My assumption (based on my experience with WSOP.com) is that if/when online poker becomes available to the American market again, there will be another “gold rush”, if you will. Prob not exactly like when Moneymaker won all those years ago, but the biggest boom since then for sure. Also, the fact that the actual WSOP turnout every summer is growing year to year i think indicates the potential for another “poker boom”.

Thoughts?

I'm not the best person to ask about this, but post #569 explains my view on online poker.

I unfortunately don't think another poker boom is coming. I also think now some players are so good that even if a state did legalize gambling, it'd be a lot less fun to a new player sitting at a NL$200 table where 2-4 of the other 5 players already have a very good idea of what they're doing.

Question for Matthew Janda:

I have read both of your books several times and I also watched the module you did with UpswingPoker. Excellent work, by the way. I am quickly becoming one of your biggest fans.

In your later book, you lay out your thought process when out of position on the flop. In doing so, you lay out an example and indicate that when you check-raise that spot, you mentally create that range by counting out the number of “value” check-raises and using that number to create the number of your “bluff” check-raise combos to get a 1:1.5 ratio (in that specific spot).

When you play other spots (not necessarily out of position on the flop), do you also mentally have a ratio in mind? If you do, are they still the same ratios derived in Applications? I understand that these ratios are just rules of thumb and that you can also change them exploitatively. I really ask this because it is clear that your new book’s ranges (at least on the flop) are a little less polarized and was wondering if these Applications ratios still hold up for someone implementing the somewhat less polarized ranges of your new book. I’m trying to elevate my game and am wondering if I should count out combos like this using your Applications ratios while actually sitting at a table pondering, for instance, a raise.

Thanks!

No, I would not use ratios and count out combos for other spots.

I would recommend you be aware enough of your ranges that you don't get too weighted towards strong hands or too weighted towards weak hands, or if you are weighted in one direction (say you have too many "bluffs" on the turn) you understand that and think you're doing this to successfully exploit your opponents who are folding too much.