Thank you for the breakdown. I will order both of them. I prefer paperback and will order them as such. Amazon.ca does seem to indicate that there are only a few paperback available? I'm assuming it was just recently published and you are waiting on the first print run?

I can't explain that. As far as I know they are print on demand, so I don't know why there would be a limited number.

It could be an Amazon sales trick: get them while you can.

Yes, it's a marketing trick. See Robert Cialdini's book Influence, chapter 7 named "Scarcity". It triggers you to make an impulse purchase in order to avoid missing out. This will almost never happen because Amazon generally reload their stock very quickly.

Thank you for this. It is good to have scholarly confirmation of an intuition.

Do you know when this book will be available in amazon in kindle? Been seeing Item Under Review sign on the page for awhile.

Hi Rocky, both Part 1 and Part 2 are available on Kindle. I see it clearly as an option on Amazon (both .ca and .com) so not sure what you are looking at.
Alternatively, I think you can also purchase the e-books directly from Andrew on his website.

It is now, but as late as yesterday, it was not.

Yep, both books are available in the Kindle store now. Sorry for the inconvenience/delay.

Hope to read reviews from players other than those you sent free copies . Not saying this in a hostile way, but not just poping out 30-40 or more
On books or sites or whatever, unless the info is actually actionable.
I constantly read , for example,” when you study these ranges etc with the various calculators,” you’ll start to see patterns emerge so you can play better”. Well, why are those patterns not being published? Is it somehow different for everyone? Is this just another book showing you how to study? Why not publish the findings?

In the ICM chapter, we are given the indifference equation
0 = (1-%call) * 110 - (%call * 95) and told the answer is 0.136

1. Shouldn't 110 be = 115, since that is the $EV gain for our stack, given earlier on the same page?

2. I am just a cashgame donk, but I can't figure out how you get 0.136 here, instead of 0.548~ On the next page the number 0.133 is instead given. I'm wondering if what was meant was the difference in calls between the two situations, though even that doesn't quite line up.
This seems like a mistake? Though I'm super open to the possibility that I'm missing something obvious and will feel silly soon.

Overall really enjoyed both books!

Hi Andrew:

Thanks for your book.

I think KK shouldn't be in Opal's range, but it is in the Kindle version, pos. 180

Hi Softstep, thanks for your interest in the book. I'm not sure what findings you're referring to, but the book does indeed explicitly discuss many of the patterns (I call them heuristics) we can identify by studying solve solutions.

Is it actionable? It's a book about how to think about poker. There's a lot of general advice you can act on right away (being more thoughtful about bet sizing, choice of hands for bluffing, c-betting frequency, etc) but it still requires you to understand concepts to implement them. It doesn't offer a "system" or something, and you should be suspicious of any book that does.

There are 14 reviews on Amazon, all 4- or 5-stars. Three are written by people who received advanced copies of the book.

Good catch, that does appear to be an error, with the correct answer being .548. It's a less dramatic result, admittedly, but in my defense I will point to the following paragraph:

"That exact number is specific to this scenario and not important. What is important is the process by which we derived it and the general point that Opal calls less often, despite getting the same pot odds, when she considers the ICM implications of the final table."

Thanks for finding this, I will fix in future versions of the book!

Good catch! That doesn't appear in earlier editions; must have snuck in when I added the higher resolution images. FWIW, it doesn't affect any of the results, which were calculated using the correct ranges.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention!

Yeah easy mistake to make (especially with revising back and forth), I was mostly worried I had completely misunderstood something haha

Thx for confirming it!

Thanks for your reply. I unfairly lumped you in with recent publications that talk about equities/ with different board textures. It just seemed silly to me if there were general patterns, then why not point them out.
In certain spots, such as opening ranges, three betting preflop, etc it seems there is/ and has to be a specific- static if you will, strategy set. A system no, but GTO is specific. Correct me if I’m wrong on that. After years of hearing not to commit to a rigid opening raising strategy, now it seems to be unexploitable it needs to be a rigid set of hands.
But what caught my attention is that you said something to the effect of , now that you have learned more about GTO, you’re less concerned about getting into tough spots, but more interested in putting opponents in tough decision spots. So astounds like more aggression, bigger bets, raises in spots that you might not have before?? Any of these scenarios in your book?

Thanks, SS. You're right that the book is about how to use game theory to better navigate your own tough decisions and present your opponents with tough decisions. One important point, however, is that aggression is not the only way to do this. A well-constructed checking range, for instance, presents the opponent with a tough decision about whether to bet certain hands. A well-constructed calling range presents him with tough decisions about whether to bluff.

The scenarios the book examines are designed to increase your understanding of game theory so that you can recognize these opportunities when playing. The advice is not on the order of "make big check-raises on two-tone paired boards when playing as BB vs CO" or something like that. That's too specific to be useful, IMO.

The scenarios are about examining a solver solution and identifying what features of the situation cause the equilibrium to look the way it does: why does one player bet at a higher or lower frequency, why do certain hands get raised, when are overbets used, etc. This enables you to identify these opportunities in any situation you may encounter.

👍👍 I’ll be buying the book, thank you

Thank YOU!

Hello, p.42 of POP2 states: "Many players act as if bluffing the turn obliges them to bluff again on the river. In fact, your turn betting range needs to include some bluffs that will give up on the river or else your opponent has no incentive to call the turn and fold the river. If your opponent knew you always bluffed the river after bluffing the turn, he could exploit you by never calling the turn with hands he did not plan to take to showdown."

Question: Why would opponent ever call the turn with hands he did not plan to take to showdown?

Please explain what is meant here and provide an example if possible. I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around the above statement.

Any help is much appreciated. Thank you!

I'm not sure the why matters. It is what it is, some players do call turn and can fold to river bet.

That line of the book is very flawed because it begins with ''In fact'', and proceeds to state something that is not a fact, and not always applicable, making me question the veracity of the whole book. It assume things about how the opponent is thinking. Author is drawing from past experiences without analyzing the situation in a whole, a very lazy way to write a book.

Three reasons why a player would call turn and fold river:

1. He was hoping to improve his hand but did not.

2. The river card improved the better's range to the point where he no longer felt good about calling down.

3. He was hoping the better would not bet again.

The Multi-Street Clairvoyance game demonstrates that, at equilibrium, the better must employ a mixed strategy with his bluffs, having some that never bluff, some that bet turn and not river, and some that bet both streets. Likewise, the caller must have some hands that fold turn, some that call turn and fold river, and some that call both turn and river. Any pure strategy, or even a mix that does not include all three options at the right frequencies, would be exploitable.

Just the opposite: this is a description of equilibrium or unexploitable play, which explicitly does not rely upon any assumption about your opponent will play. If you chose to make such an assumption, for example, that your opponent will always call river once he calls turn, then you could exploit that by never double barreling as a bluff. But the equilibrium will involve a mix, as I explain above and demonstrate in the book.

Hello, thank you for your reply and your patience!

I am still not seeing where the potential exploit is on the turn. If my opponent knows I will always bluff the river after bluffing the turn, then I will have too many weak hands betting the river, but the text talks about a possible exploit on the turn. So my question is what range adjustment would my opponent make on the turn if he knew I will always bluff the river as opposed to if he didn't know. If he has a low flush draw ("He was hoping to improve his hand but did not.") he would still likely call the turn bet whether he knew I would bet the river again or not.

If I am bluffing too much on the river and opponent knows that, then he could exploit me by calling wider on the river, but on the turn, many draws still call even though they have no showdown value, so "he could exploit you by never calling the turn with hands he did not plan to take to showdown" still does not make sense to me. If you could provide an example of such an exploit I would greatly appreciate.

In other words, if I understand correctly, some bluffs must give up on the river so our river betting range is not too bluff heavy, but if opponent knows that we will always bluff on the river, how does that change the range composition that they decide to proceed to the river with on the turn? It seems to me that knowing that my opponent will bet again on the river does not affect my turn actions but only my river actions, while the book talks about an exploit on the turn...