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.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-21-2017, 09:25 PM   #176
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 982
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by savonius04 View Post
Hi Matthew,

I'm about half way through the book so far, absolutely enjoying it (also a big fan of Applications). Just a quick question.

On page 58 in the You Don't Want Action section, when talking about having QQ on T74 in a single raised heads up pot of $100, you estimate the EV of our hand before betting to be around $95.

What thought process did you use to come up with this number? Is this something from snowie/pio, or a rough estimate from having a lot of experience with theory?

Thanks!
Totally pulled it out of my ass.

Did I even include the previous action in that example? It's just used to illustrate a concept of how you can flop a pretty strong hand (an overpair, TPGK, pair + FD, etc) type hand and still for the EV of your hand (+$95 in this made up case) to be less than the pot ($100 in this made up case).
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2017, 09:29 PM   #177
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 982
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by MouseyB View Post
Hey, first off just wanto to say this is a great book. Lots of new ideas in it that I think can help me improve, and well written and explained too.

That said, I'd really appreciate it if anyone would take the time to explain a few things about the check raise chapter. Sounds like the poster above would appreciate it too.

Just to clarify - we want to check raise 1) to deny villain equity with a hand that can outdraw us, 2) because we do actually have a hand and want to build the pot in case we win, and 3) because we are doing well against his continuing range.

As a 5nl player, I'm sure some would tell me to spend my time worrying about non-GTO-ish stuff, but I'd like to get this straight in my head. This is all a bit rough but....

On the 852r board we have:

Check raising range - A8 and K8, say. But I'd be happy to see a fold, so it almost feels like we need to 'back up' our medium c/r hands with stronger ones like 88. We then also have some obvious bluffs. So this feels quite strange because normally I'd check call a set on this pretty dry board, partly because it we aren't that vulnerable, partly to make my c/c range stronger. So I guess the thing is to make sure we have some monsters in both c/r and c/c.

Therefore in check call; we can have one or two sets, along with weaker top pairs that don't do well when villain defends.

Does that all sound reasonable?!

Then, though, there is the 8s6s4h board, where we don't want to check raise TPTK because villain's continuing range is much stronger. So we are in effect bloating the pot with a hand that is TOO vulnerable, in a sense - we're in bad shape when called.

But by this logic, should we not also flat sets? Possibly not, because we are still ahead of all turns that give villain two pair, but we could still say that raising sets bloats a pot again a range that is likely to turn a straight or flush. I suppose it all comes down, obviously, to having different ranges on different boards. But any thoughts and clarification is much appreciated.

Finally, here's an example (hopefully this is allowed in this part of the forum?)

PokerStars - $0.05 NL (6 max) - Holdem - 5 players
Hand converted by PokerTracker 4

UTG: 157.8 BB (VPIP: 38.74, PFR: 25.23, 3Bet Preflop: 6.52, Hands: 118)
CO: 103 BB (VPIP: 25.65, PFR: 22.61, 3Bet Preflop: 9.78, Hands: 237)
BTN: 100 BB (VPIP: 20.00, PFR: 15.52, 3Bet Preflop: 8.45, Hands: 180)
SB: 101.4 BB (VPIP: 22.67, PFR: 18.67, 3Bet Preflop: 13.79, Hands: 78)
Hero (BB): 229.2 BB

SB posts SB 0.4 BB, Hero posts BB 1 BB

Pre Flop: (pot: 1.4 BB) Hero has T K

fold, CO raises to 4 BB, fold, fold, Hero calls 3 BB

Flop: (8.4 BB, 2 players) T 5 3
Hero checks, CO bets 10 BB, Hero raises to 30 BB, CO calls 20 BB

Turn: (68.4 BB, 2 players) 5
Hero bets 68 BB, CO raises to 69 BB and is all-in, Hero calls 1 BB

River: (206.4 BB, 2 players) 6

A rainbow flop would be better, but in-game I thought this came pretty close to a good check raise spot. Problem is that the turn gets tricky, as we know can happen often. Like it says in the book, though, a check/raise flop check/call flop turn just feels uncomfortable, it's not a 'usual' line. But at the same time this turn feels spewey as hell.

So some thoughts on whether this was a sensible c/r spot or not also appreciated, and any ideas about the turn.

Mods, or anyone, just me if I need to post the hand part of this post elsewhere.

Thanks all
I would not CR here on this flop as default for a few reasons:

#1) You're pretty deep (100BB)

#2) CO opening range is way, way stronger than the button opening range

#3) There is a FD on the board, so more of the CR "floats" will be draws than on a rainbow board.

#4) The PF open was big (I'd have folded PF) and he overbet(!!!) the flop.

It's fine to screw up hands, as it's NL$5 and you should be mostly having fun/learning. But at a glance the biggest problem here is it looks like you don't understand how much the flush completely on the turn drastically changes the way the hand will play out.

The turn puts flushes into both his range and your range. That means your KT going to:

A) Have a much harder time getting value from hands you beat (since villain will correctly assume you may have the flush)

B) Be beaten more often.

If you do CR the flop here you have to understand how much worse your hand is now on that turn and realize it's not strong enough to keep betting against a reasonable player. All of this stuff takes a lot of time to develop/pinpoint so don't feel bad about misplaying a hand, just make sure you learn from it.

Last edited by Matthew Janda; 07-21-2017 at 09:36 PM.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2017, 09:32 PM   #178
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 982
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonezy_ View Post
Just purchased this book. Has anyone in this forum read this book yet? This may be way over my head but ive read most of it so far and I totally disagree with many of the concepts and hands he explains.

For ex. there is a hand in which he goes over where a good player on button min raises, and he defends bb with A8o. stacks are 100bb.

Flop is 825r. He checks, villain c bets, and hero decides to check raise. From a theory prospective it doesn't seem like this check raise accomplishes much at all. This raise will only get better hands to continue and the villain will fold out all of his equity, I know getting villain to fold out his equity is a good thing and makes sense but this hand is one of our strongest check calls on this board and if were against a tough opponent who is going to barrel frequently then doesn't is make sense to keep villain as wide as possible and also protect our weaker check calls on this flop by just check calling with A8? We will be check calling with 8x 77,66,5x,44,33,2x, then makes more sense to check raise 88,22,55, 85s,25s , 76s, and 34s some percentage of the time.

Someone who has read this book please help me understand why he is doing this other than just looking at one street of ev. We can happily check call flop with A8 which is our best check call, and then check call turn on an over-card, then reevaluate river, then with our weaker check calls we can start to fold out those on the turn if villain in fact keeps betting. Also we don't always have to check raise our sets and two pairs all the time either so we would further be protecting our check calling range some of the times we decide to play monsters this way. Also he talks about robust equity and non robust equity. I feel like 76 and 34 are great hands with robust equity to use as check raises on this flop sometimes. What are your guys thoughts here? I wasn't really sure where to put this since its strictly a theory based question.
Arty already did a fantastic job responding (thanks as always) so I won't go into this too much (since you've already heard my thoughts in the book and it's good to hear things explained differently by other people), but I just wanted to point out that the bolded isn't even close to true. Button is calling the check-raise with a lot of hands you are way ahead.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2017, 09:46 PM   #179
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 982
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonezy_ View Post
I wonder why that is, I guess snowie is only looking at the flop as one street, my concern is when making this play what to do on the turn. I'm if I take the check calling line, then I already know what I'm going to do on the turn, I think check calling is more than reasonable. When you check raise you get in a spot where your almost turning top pair on a dry board into a bluff, are we happy if villain decided to continue? probably not. This is tough for me to grasp, if villain is wide then why don't we keep him wide. Also are we check raising with a set? two pair? Seems like we would rather call with those hands using the logic that we aren't afraid of to many turn cards, so if were only check raising A8 and sometimes our open enders then it seems like our check raising range on this flop seems pretty weak and then against a good regular this will open ourselves up to being 3bet on the flop, just doesn't seem like a desirable situation. I'm interested to see if Mr.Janda can explain is in better detail, because check raising to denty equity doesn't seem like a good reason to bet and I feel like it could lead to a lot of mistakes on the turn and guesses in a bloated pot oop.
Snowie is not doing that.

I honestly don't know how to explain the A8 situation in better detail than is already explained in the book. I don't mean that in a "Meh I don't want to deal with answering this" kind of way, but I feel like all of your questions are explicitly answered in the book (usually in a "Well, you're probably wondering how to play the turn after check-raising the flop..." kind of way) and I spent hundreds of hours on that book and Mason, David, and I edited it back and forth probably a dozen combined times. So I just don't think I can provide a better explanation, but maybe other people in this thread can explain it in a different way that will help.

I also think there's a good chance it will "click" once you finish reading the book (if you haven't already), and sometimes ideas take a while to process. Or perhaps you'll understand them and just disagree with implementing them for the games you're currently playing, which I think is fine too.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2017, 02:00 AM   #180
MouseyB
journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: France
Posts: 334
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Janda View Post
I would not CR here on this flop as default for a few reasons:

#1) You're pretty deep (100BB)

#2) CO opening range is way, way stronger than the button opening range

#3) There is a FD on the board, so more of the CR "floats" will be draws than on a rainbow board.

#4) The PF open was big (I'd have folded PF) and he overbet(!!!) the flop.

It's fine to screw up hands, as it's NL$5 and you should be mostly having fun/learning. But at a glance the biggest problem here is it looks like you don't understand how much the flush completely on the turn drastically changes the way the hand will play out.

The turn puts flushes into both his range and your range. That means your KT going to:

A) Have a much harder time getting value from hands you beat (since villain will correctly assume you may have the flush)

B) Be beaten more often.

If you do CR the flop here you have to understand how much worse your hand is now on that turn and realize it's not strong enough to keep betting against a reasonable player. All of this stuff takes a lot of time to develop/pinpoint so don't feel bad about misplaying a hand, just make sure you learn from it.
Thanks a lot, very very helpful
MouseyB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2017, 06:16 PM   #181
Bonezy_
stranger
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 10
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Husker View Post
The turn isn't easy to play when called but you can't look at it in isolation. The whole idea is that we're getting a ton of folds on the flop, geting opponents to fold their equity.
so were essentially turning a made hand into a bluff
Bonezy_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2017, 06:35 PM   #182
Bonezy_
stranger
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 10
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Janda View Post
Arty already did a fantastic job responding (thanks as always) so I won't go into this too much (since you've already heard my thoughts in the book and it's good to hear things explained differently by other people), but I just wanted to point out that the bolded isn't even close to true. Button is calling the check-raise with a lot of hands you are way ahead.
what hands? because usually in the live games I play in they will either fold worse or continue with better. I guess this means I should be check raise bluffing more, but this hand just doesn't seem like a hand id like to check raise with then, there seem to be plenty of worse hands that I can check raise here that will serve the same purpose, for ex, overcards with back door equity and open enders. I don't see a point in this range merging type play... and a lot of the time I'm not check raising my sets and two pairs for the same exact reason why you do check raise the A8. Most of the time the opponent will just fold out his over cards and I will only get stacks in when he has a big hand like an over pair, so it seems like it is kind of hard to balance my check raising range on this flop since he is going to have air so often.
Bonezy_ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2017, 07:17 PM   #183
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 982
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonezy_ View Post
what hands? because usually in the live games I play in they will either fold worse or continue with better. I guess this means I should be check raise bluffing more, but this hand just doesn't seem like a hand id like to check raise with then, there seem to be plenty of worse hands that I can check raise here that will serve the same purpose, for ex, overcards with back door equity and open enders. I don't see a point in this range merging type play... and a lot of the time I'm not check raising my sets and two pairs for the same exact reason why you do check raise the A8.
Exactly. Either your opponents are very, very rarely continuation betting, or you can print massive amounts of money by check-raising any two cards.

Sounds like you think your opponents are folding way too much to check-raises, so just check-raise extremely aggressively with air.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonezy_ View Post
Most of the time the opponent will just fold out his over cards and I will only get stacks in when he has a big hand like an over pair, so it seems like it is kind of hard to balance my check raising range on this flop since he is going to have air so often.
The overwhelming majority of the time your check-raise won't be 3-bet. If he does 3-bet, you're likely substantially better off calling than jamming.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2017, 07:46 PM   #184
MouseyB
journeyman
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: France
Posts: 334
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonezy_ View Post
what hands? because usually in the live games I play in they will either fold worse or continue with better. I guess this means I should be check raise bluffing more, but this hand just doesn't seem like a hand id like to check raise with then, there seem to be plenty of worse hands that I can check raise here that will serve the same purpose, for ex, overcards with back door equity and open enders. I don't see a point in this range merging type play... and a lot of the time I'm not check raising my sets and two pairs for the same exact reason why you do check raise the A8. Most of the time the opponent will just fold out his over cards and I will only get stacks in when he has a big hand like an over pair, so it seems like it is kind of hard to balance my check raising range on this flop since he is going to have air so often.
Also, I think an important part of that chapter is that an ussumption that villain is playing sort of balanced, insofar as he wants to stop us printing money, by defending the requisite amount. I.e. if we c/r pot then he wants to defend around 50%. So this either forces him to defend with a range we do well against, or he overfolds and we print money (correct me if I'm wrong).
MouseyB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2017, 09:23 PM   #185
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 982
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by MouseyB View Post
Also, I think an important part of that chapter is that an ussumption that villain is playing sort of balanced, insofar as he wants to stop us printing money, by defending the requisite amount. I.e. if we c/r pot then he wants to defend around 50%. So this either forces him to defend with a range we do well against, or he overfolds and we print money (correct me if I'm wrong).
Pretty much, only if you c/r pot (say pot is 5BB, he bets 2.5BB, and you CR to 7.5BB) he'll have to defend a lot more than 50% to not be folding too much.

If on the 852r board your opponent folds so much that he rarely calls with worse than A8 (button vs BB), then you're printing money by an incredibly wide margin. Didn't the book say A8 is beat like 11-13% of the time on the flop or something silly? I don't remember the exact % but I'm pretty sure it did.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2017, 03:45 AM   #186
Tomark
veteran
 
Tomark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,599
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonezy_ View Post
so were essentially turning a made hand into a bluff
This example was provided in the book explicitly to teach why bets shouldnt be viewed as "value bets" and "bluffs". Saying this isnt a value bet therefore its a bluff is the fundamentally flawed logic that this chapter set out to correct.
Tomark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2017, 09:37 AM   #187
Ihooper88
journeyman
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 294
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Are you recommending just choosing the best size for your hand in all spots and not really worrying about being balanced at all? I know you will be somewhat balanced anyway, but we are not concerned about being accurate?
Ihooper88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2017, 05:14 PM   #188
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 982
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihooper88 View Post
Are you recommending just choosing the best size for your hand in all spots and not really worrying about being balanced at all? I know you will be somewhat balanced anyway, but we are not concerned about being accurate?
Accurate in what sense?

I think if you are able to consistently pick out the most +EV line in a vacuum, you're already in the top 1% of players (realistically probably top 0.1%). I'm not saying you always get the exact perfect bet-size and never make mistakes, I just mean you're pretty damn close to consistently betting the right size when betting is appropriate and checking when checking is more appropriate.

If you're at that level, I'm really not worried AT ALL about this person failing to realize that balance can be important or else counter-strats exist. A person who is good enough to (almost) always take the most +EV line in a vacuum will be someone who has worked very, very hard at poker and already understand this, especially since it's not like a player in the top 0.1% of poker players won't use exploitative strategies against their opponents (for example, there's probably not a single person reading this who doesn't open the button more than is GTO at many/most stack depths).

That said, the next article I write (not sure if it'll be for TwoPlusTwo or Upswing Poker) will probably focus on balance, since I seem to be getting asked a lot of questions about it and I don't mind at all writing a couple pages on it to clear up some misconceptions. When I do, I'll post a link to it here.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2017, 09:13 PM   #189
Mr Sandbag
journeyman
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 251
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

It does say in the book that balance will be a natural outcome of implementing the strategies discussed. If your bet-small range consists of no strong hands, you're probably doing something wrong. Same goes for bet-large range.
Mr Sandbag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2017, 02:45 AM   #190
outofmoney
enthusiast
 
outofmoney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Philippines
Posts: 68
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Could someone starting 2nl start with this book?
outofmoney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2017, 06:53 AM   #191
Ihooper88
journeyman
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 294
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Janda View Post
Accurate in what sense?

I think if you are able to consistently pick out the most +EV line in a vacuum, you're already in the top 1% of players (realistically probably top 0.1%). I'm not saying you always get the exact perfect bet-size and never make mistakes, I just mean you're pretty damn close to consistently betting the right size when betting is appropriate and checking when checking is more appropriate.

If you're at that level, I'm really not worried AT ALL about this person failing to realize that balance can be important or else counter-strats exist. A person who is good enough to (almost) always take the most +EV line in a vacuum will be someone who has worked very, very hard at poker and already understand this, especially since it's not like a player in the top 0.1% of poker players won't use exploitative strategies against their opponents (for example, there's probably not a single person reading this who doesn't open the button more than is GTO at many/most stack depths).

That said, the next article I write (not sure if it'll be for TwoPlusTwo or Upswing Poker) will probably focus on balance, since I seem to be getting asked a lot of questions about it and I don't mind at all writing a couple pages on it to clear up some misconceptions. When I do, I'll post a link to it here.
https://gyazo.com/42d030e8c401ecccf48b298bdc1ccd6c

This is co v bb in a srp, the co betting range on the flop. Is the reason for checking some AA and some Jx for balance, to have some strong hands in our checking range? It seems like both AA and Jx strongly satisfy both reasons for betting?
Ihooper88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2017, 12:07 PM   #192
ArtyMcFly
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ArtyMcFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Enchantment Under the Sea
Posts: 13,221
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihooper88 View Post
https://gyazo.com/42d030e8c401ecccf48b298bdc1ccd6c
This is co v bb in a srp, the co betting range on the flop. Is the reason for checking some AA and some Jx for balance, to have some strong hands in our checking range? It seems like both AA and Jx strongly satisfy both reasons for betting?
I'm keen to read Matthew's article about balance when it comes out. I kind of feel like balance arises naturally as a result of trying to maximise the EV of your range/strategy given that there are various responses to your actions and various runouts still to be navigated.
There are clearly some good reasons to bet with AA, but there are some other combos that satisfy those reasons even more strongly. e.g. JJ or 86s or 75s are pretty much mandatory c-bets (sets and two pairs are "obvious" value bets. The 75s OESD is an "obvious" bluff, and all of these combos have robust equity. They're still in good shape if villain check-raises and threatens to play for stacks).
AA and J9s/J7s have mixed strategies because they work equally well as bets for value/protection, or as check backs that can be used as delayed c-bets or as bluff-catchers. If you always bet AA and all Jx combos, then your check-back range would definitely be somewhat weak and vulnerable to turn and river bluffs by villain. You've got to check back some made hands on the flop so that you can adequately defend against turn bluffs. On J86tt, AA and J9s/J7s (and TT/99) seem like very good candidates for doing that.
FWIW, I suppose that KK/QQ are more likely to bet the flop than AA is in that spot, despite being "worse hands", because they are slightly more vulnerable to free cards. Denying free equity is apparently more important with those hands, because some turn cards could mean they are close to drawing dead, and they won't be able to bluff-catch profitably on many runouts.
ArtyMcFly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2017, 02:19 PM   #193
CorrectSide
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 305
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ihooper88 View Post
https://gyazo.com/42d030e8c401ecccf48b298bdc1ccd6c

This is co v bb in a srp, the co betting range on the flop. Is the reason for checking some AA and some Jx for balance, to have some strong hands in our checking range? It seems like both AA and Jx strongly satisfy both reasons for betting?
What range do you give to BB as defend, may i ask?
CorrectSide is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2017, 05:36 AM   #194
Curryboy
centurion
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 155
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Hi Matthew,

Mistakenly posted this in pre sale thread too.

In the section 'Why we Bet and Raise' you give the example of the BB ch rz A8*vs Btn 50% cbet on 852*to build a pot to win and deny button ability to realise equity.

Could you explain why achieving these things is more valuable than potentially gaining more bluffs from the weaker/lower equity hands in Btn range on turn/river if BB were to instead ch call the flop?*

Thanks*
Curryboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2017, 06:28 AM   #195
mrno1324
veteran
 
mrno1324's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 2,780
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

^^ There was a big discussion from post #156 onwards

tldr the book explains it well
mrno1324 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2017, 08:01 AM   #196
Matthew Janda
 
Matthew Janda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 982
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryboy View Post
Hi Matthew,

Mistakenly posted this in pre sale thread too.

In the section 'Why we Bet and Raise' you give the example of the BB ch rz A8*vs Btn 50% cbet on 852*to build a pot to win and deny button ability to realise equity.

Could you explain why achieving these things is more valuable than potentially gaining more bluffs from the weaker/lower equity hands in Btn range on turn/river if BB were to instead ch call the flop?*

Thanks*
As another poster pointed out, the book addresses this in great detail so it's going to be hard to address it better here. I would recommend reading the 852r section again, as it often takes a while for this stuff to "click."

That said, your question is a good one and one that troubled a lot of players (myself included). What I would recommend you do is "argue like a politician" why check-calling with the A8 on the 852r board is good and why check-raising is good. Clearly, they'll both have lots of advantages and disadvantages. This is what makes the spot confusing.

Once you've written everything out (and you really should do it), you still won't really have an answer. There's so many pros and cons to both calling and raising. That's where solvers (PioSOLVER) and artificial intelligence (PokerSnowie) come in. And if you look at what they recommend, they recommend check-raising with strong but vulnerable hands which likely won't be able to go check-raise/bet/bet (such as A8 on the 852r board) much more aggressively than most players would have thought just a few years ago.

Hope that helps.
Matthew Janda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2017, 08:17 AM   #197
mrfunnywobbl
adept
 
mrfunnywobbl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Sentient Ant Colony
Posts: 946
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Hi,

I'm thinking of getting this and Applications in a number of months through the 2p2 888 book deal. I'm only playing the micros though. Will I struggle a lot with concepts? I've read the grinders manual and understand basic concepts but no math advanced math or game theory.
mrfunnywobbl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2017, 12:12 PM   #198
Oroku$aki
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
Oroku$aki's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Blithe
Posts: 7,062
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

So what's the verdict? Is it superior to Applications?
Oroku$aki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2017, 01:33 PM   #199
itaba
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 308
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

On part 6 Your bread and butter: Hand examples.

We have initial impressions, hands we bet big and hand we bet small and mistakes. Ok i learn a lot what kinds of made hands we bet and why bet, but there are no bluffs or light cbets examples. ¿Should I never bluff on Button vs Big blind?
itaba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2017, 07:15 PM   #200
ArtyMcFly
Carpal \'Tunnel
 
ArtyMcFly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Enchantment Under the Sea
Posts: 13,221
Re: No-Limit Hold ’em For Advanced Players by Matthew Janda Reviews and discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by Oroku$aki View Post
So what's the verdict? Is it superior to Applications?
'Applications' was the most useful poker book I ever read. It opened my mind to a whole new way of thinking about poker, and it came out at just the right time for me (when I was starting to get more interested in ranges and 'optimal play' theory instead of just ABC strat). That said, I'm finding this one (I'm about 90% done) to be a much better book, and definitely an easier read. It also contains fewer equations. I hate equations.
ArtyMcFly 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 11:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2008-2017, Two Plus Two Interactive
 
 
Poker Players - Streaming Live Online