Hi euilan:

This is correct and we hope to have the kindle back up in a few days.

Best wishes,
Mason

Good to know, looking forward to buy it

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.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Will my version auto-update after they correct the mistake?

Explains that downswing I went on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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).

I loled

I disagree with the maybe applications not being useful for micro limit, as it was the book that improved my technique the most. Similarly, the technique of tournaments (elsewere, like in one hand at the time -- just odered the vol2 -- plus using cash hands and technique where possible).

I dont advice to use the technique like it is used vs. a bot, but other than that the technique made the biggest difference in my game, and I wouldnt be worried about the rest (no book needed).

Not expecting anything from this new book for the above reasons, and Adlibris doesnt have it yet (or it is there but they dont have it yet). And I am playing tourneys now and the books I am reading are difficult and make me tired.

Moved a few pre-sale questions to the original thread. You can find them here:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/33...hread-1660716/

I got my copy yesterday and finished it late last night. I enjoyed the writing style and couldn't put it down. +1

Just received my new copy of the book care of amazon to Ireland. Took maybe 2 weeks which is not bad. I will start reading it now and come back with a review. I look forward to it. I thoroughly enjoyed Applications as a book so I have much love for Janda.

- Villain

Why does raising with 72o preflop a bad idea, even though it satisfies both reasons for betting:
- Make the pot bigger when we win it
- Deny equity
?

A couple of questions.
Page 122

I don't quite understand why it won't matter. If we deviate by betting too much then we should be exploited (If not why not just play a pure strategy?).
Also, the term technically unexploitable kinda confuses me. I interpret it as if there's a spectrum of unexploitable strategies that goes from simple to complex (for a human) to implement. Is that correct?

I am a bit disappointed with a book. I think the name of the book is misleading.

No-Limit Hold'em For Advanced players
"One of the foremost poker authors shows how a good no-limit hold'em player can become a great no-limit hold'em player."

So from the cover of the book I would expect the material for already good winning players (mid-stakes regulars).

But the reality is that it doesn't even teach us how to bluff. What hands to choose? What frequencies to use in order to have the right amount of bluffs?

So in game I have a draw and I can click any sizing because they all make sense? How does it help me to become a great player?

What this book teaches is value betting bigger with your better hands and lower with your weaker hands which is obvious to any good player.

So all in all, this book would be useful for beginner players and I would be happy to read it as a beginner. But it clearly doesn't teach you how to become a great player if you are a good one and even more how to beat "Tough opposition" as book title says.

I think he means that an optimal opponent won't adjust his strategy from his own gto play.

The book explicitly says every hand you can open with PF satisfies the two reasons for raising, but 72o doesn't do it well enough against good players.

In other words, its too weak of a hand to raise since you won't end up winning with it frequently enough.

That's a leap of logic.
It's not saying that if it satisfies reasons for betting we should bet, otherwise we could justify betting in about every spot. With that logic you could for example justify the silly strategy of always raising second pair on the flop.
It's simply saying that if we're going to bet/raise it should be for those reasons.

Thank you for taking the time to explain what you didn't like about the book.

Are you talking mid-stakes online cash? Like NL$400 to NL$1000?

If so I don't even think it's possible for a book to teach you how to beat those limits, you're talking about beating regulars that are probably in the top 0.01% of players. The best a book (or any training material) can do is get you on the right track.

A few points:

1. The bluffing stuff and frequency stuff was already discussed in great detail in Applications. Unfortunately, I either had to leave some stuff out of the new book that was already in Applications, or else end up being very repetitive and charging readers for the same information twice. I went for the former.

2. What do you even mean by "bluff?" This book stresses that the terms "bluff" and "value bet" don't even really work in many situations, unless we're on the river. Again, as has been explained in Applications as well as countless other poker books, if you're betting $50 into a $100 pot on the river with a polarized range you need 3 value bets for every 1 bluff. That's easy.

But how about if you're continuation betting in position on a K85 flop? How strong does a hand need to be to be a "value bet?" Is 87 a value bet? If it is, is it considered a "value bet" the same was the 55 is? What about 76? The terms don't work. So, rather than try to develop ratios for terms that don't really work (again, which was already done in great detail in Applications before we had access to more powerful software), I chose to focus on making sure you're taking the most +EV line with hands on the flop and turn that aren't part of mixed strategies. That usually involves picking the right bet sizing with strong and medium strength hands, and not picking a bad bet sizing with weak hands and draws (a sizing that would make sense with no hands in your range).

The book explicitly discusses multiple examples where certain bet sizes don't make sense. This isn't something you need to infer, I'm talking about how this is something explicitly discussed multiple time in the book for different stack depths (both 100BB deep and shallow).

Clearly when I say "overbetting doesn't make sense with any hand in your range here" or "betting small doesn't make sense with any hand in your range here due to stack depth" it means every hand in your range, including draws. And when you're deep and playing in position on a twotone flop and a full PSB, 1/2 PSB, and 1/4 PSB all make sense, then it also makes sense that there should probably be flush draws in all betting ranges since if you don't have a flush draw in any range there's going to be a clear counter-strategy.

First of all, this isn't obvious to all players. There are tons of poker books that tell you to bet only one bet sizing since that way your opponent won't be able to put you on a hand. There are even poker books that explicitly say don't adjust your bet sizing based on the strength of your hand, since that makes you too easy to play against (which isn't true if it's done correctly, which is what the book helps teach you how to do).

And even if it was obvious to value bet bigger with good hands and bet smaller with weaker hands (which is a huge oversimplification), this would be like me writing a 9 word poker book that just says "Always take the most +EV line in every situation." Yeah, it's a true statement, but for the book to be good it has to explain why it's good and give lots of examples in a (relatively) easy to digest manner. And that's IMO the hardest part about writing a poker book, you have to not only explain a new concept but also teach a new player how to begin seeing patterns and applying it when your readership consists of players of all different skill levels.

I think we may have very different definitions of "beginner." I have coached several tournament players and more than a couple cash game players over the last few years (all from word of mouth, I don't advertise coaching), many of whom consistently make $100k+ a year. All of them did not know many of the concepts in this book when I started coaching them, otherwise they wouldn't have continued to hire me to coach them and recommended me totheir friends.






I actually really do appreciate you taking the time to mention why you're disappointed with the book. Most of the time when someone has criticism for one of my books or videos I actually agree with the criticism, I just don't in this particular case and I want to explain why. Please don't take my disagreeing with you as me saying you're wrong as you're completely entitled to post any of your opinions here, I just also wanted to explain why I made the decisions I did when writing the book or why I currently think the way that I do.

Good post, and another way to put it is this isn't a binary thing. Unless we're on the river, every hand in every situation probably "denies some equity as well as makes the pot bigger in case we win," but there exist a threshold where it has to be good enough at doing these things to justify a bet or raise.

As Husker just said, an optimal opponent won't exploit you. He just does his own GTO thing regardless of what you do. You could be playing a GTO opponent heads up and go all-in 1000 times in a row pre-flop, and assuming it's GTO for your given stack depth, he's still going to be folding AQ and TT to the jam.

If you ever do find yourself playing against a GTO opponent, I do recommend you use the easiest to implement pure strategy you can. You'll gain no benefit from taking the harder lines that are part of mixed strategies (and since you're human and not a GTO robot, you'll be more likely to make a mistake with the hard to implement lines).

I perhaps shouldn't have used the word "technically" here and I don't think it's necessary in the sentence. I would just ignore it.

I did this a couple times vs Snowie at 200bb for the lolz until it snapped me with A9o after about 5 times
Turns out it happily always calls it off there, probably a bug because of the unusual spot.
Still was scary.

I just finished the book and want to say it was absolutely fantastic. One of the best poker strategy books I have read.

The concepts and how to apply them were explained excellently and clearly. I had an idea about most of the concepts but this book definitely crystallized them in my mind and I have a much better idea of how to bring them into my game.

What I like best about this book is that it is not a manual but gives enough information to let me formulate my own strategies and think about spots in much clearer ways. Much love Janda I was a fan of your first book also.

I whole-heartedly disagree with iAudrius criticism's as a reasonable player should already know about the theory and how much to bluff there are other books which focus on this and the math more. This book gives you strategic fundamentals to build on and how to think about your ranges and gives a framework to know what to do with all your hands.

I have one note however. Its when you talk about GTO strategies and when you say that it doesn't matter what you do against them. I was under the impression that you cannot do anything to increase your EV against them but there is plenty you can do that will decrease it. So if you play against a GTO bot and you just click buttons you will consistently lose. Maybe I am wrong as I haven't done much work with these solvers software.

"As Husker just said, an optimal opponent won't exploit you. He just does his own GTO thing regardless of what you do. You could be playing a GTO opponent heads up and go all-in 1000 times in a row pre-flop, and assuming it's GTO for your given stack depth, he's still going to be folding AQ and TT to the jam."

Sorry, I am confused. GTO opponent maximally exploits you, so he constantly adjusts to your range. If you push any two over and over again, then he adjusts his range and may call 50% and only then you are both at equilibrium, isn't it?

Hey MJ just wanted to pop in real quick and tell you I loved the book. It becomes increasingly harder to have those Aha! moments the further I move along on this poker journey and this book definitely provided a few. So thank you for taking the time to write it and giving so much value to poker enthusiast like myself.

I don't have time at the moment but when I do I'll try to think of a few questions.

Loved the books. Any chance you will write one focusing on tournaments? I know they are mentioned frequently in examples, but getting focused on tournaments would be great.

Thanks

Yeah, I wouldn't worry about it. Snowie has always had some pretty big "leaks" in its game, but they're often pretty easy to pick out.