Please explain how gaining extra money in the long run doesn’t increase our expectation.

Is there ever a situation where you think this is correct? I don’t.

You need to read what you bolded again and notice that it says "maximizing your expectation."

MM

Mason's book is great. It was written for games spanning 1995-2005. The good loose games back then were not only loose pre but loose postflop, you could hit an obvious flush and see 4 ppl put action in on the river. Nowadays, you have to get ur value in early because even in the great games that are capped 6ways rivers are often uncontested or usually HU at showdown.

No.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Please don't ban me, but I still don't get it.

You agree that by 3 betting we make extra money in the long run as compared to not 3 betting preflop. But by not 3 betting we maximize our expectation.

Isn't our expectation the amount of money we expect to win in the long run? Isn't this our expected value?

Hi Clumsy Surgeon:

Okay. Let me see if I can explain it this way. By making what appears to be an unusual play before the flop and by then following a unique strategy after the flop you lose some of your EV before the flop but hopefully gain it all back plus a little extra after the flop.

Here is the quote again from page 167 of Hold 'em Poker For Advanced Players:

Notice that there are two unique changes to standard strategy and standard strategy would be to three bet before the flop and then to lead bet (in most cases) on the flop unless an ace flops (and some players might still lead bet the flop when an ace flops).

1. You only call and don't three-bet before the flop. This should cause your EV to go down.

2. You bet out on the flop unless it includes an ace where a more standard strategy would be to check to the raiser. This should hopefully cause your EV to go up more than it went down before the flop partly because you'll now win the pot more often.

By the way, if you read the Loose Games section in our book, you'll see that there are some hands when against certain types of players in these large multiway pots where we recommend a three-bet, and most players would not make this three-bet.

And for another example, here is part of an article that David Sklansky wrote many years ago which is not currently in any of our books:

As for being banned, one of the purposes of our forums is vigorous debate. So if you disagree with something I say, that's fine. However, on these forums we also try to keep insults to a minimum. That's been our policy from the very beginning over 20 years ago, and when a poster starts to put up insults, there's a good chance they'll get banned.

Best wishes,
Mason

Mason, or David, do you think its correct to raise QQ from the BB in a 8 way limped pot? I do but I guess that can be a topic for the next pre-flop thread


Also, this quote just seems awful: From page 167 of HPFAP: For instance, suppose you have two kings or two queens in the big blind. The player under the gun raises, and six people call. Our preferred way to play this hand is to not reraise, and then when the flop comes to bet out, unless it includes an ace. You should come out betting enlisting the original preflop raiser to be your unwitting partner to knock people out.

Mason is your advice really that I should check QQ in the BB after 7 limpers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My guess is that he will say no, since we don't have an "unwitting partner" to help us knock players out on the flop.

His proposed strategy seems to presuppose that the pfr will always take an aggressive action on the flop and will raise a donk bet with a huge portion of their range. These assumptions, imo, simply don't hold water.

i'm interested in the math if someone actually wants to put in the elbow grease, but 7 handed is pretty complicated. i'm going to stick to my guns and guess that if i'm ever blessed with 7 handed pots that ed miller style of gassing up everything resembling a good hand is probably good.

i think the best argument for calling pre and donking non-ace flops would have to be a specific situation (and the math behind it couldn't hurt), but a majority of PFR types and field types would support just 3betting preflop.

Seems possible that calling becomes better with the presence of a couple players in the game who will correctly adjust to your 3-bet, but overplay their hand post-flop when you just call. Their positions relative to your position in the blinds plays a factor in the whole 'doing what it takes to win big pots'.

Put me in the 3 bet all day camp. I understand your reasoning I just don't agree.

I dont know why you have to be condescending about it...suggesting people who disagree have gone broke...cmon.

I've been using TwoPlusTwo since 2003 and I've gotten banned for the first time in 14 years (for a week!) for suggesting that it is correct to 3-bet JJ from the BB.

Absolutely incredible especially for someone who has spent hundreds of his hard earned dollars purchasing TwoPlusTwo books.

I mean it was for going tit for tat and trying to insult him as a '20/40 player'. At least that was my perception.

You really don't understand the difference between expressing your opinion and going out of your way to insult the owner of the website you're posting on?

I guess it is possible to be good at poker but have an extreme lack of common sense.

I play tons of 20/40.

The irony being this whole thread stated because I was told I need to buy his book to understand why not 3 betting is correct

It wasnt even an insult, much worse is posted on a daily basis and if a random account posted the same advise with the same certainty they would have probably had much worse things said

Looked like an insult to me, but on rereading, it wasn't as bad as that of DonkeyOnTilt.

Yeah sure, it probably would have been worse against a random. But that's my point about having common sense here. This isn't an open forum, this is a commercial site with an owner. The bigwigs are even helpfully notated by color, and the owner is even open enough to post under his real name. Pretty foolish to ignore that.

You got banned for insults.

A number of years ago we had a sponsor get very upset with us because we didn't agree to a business deal that they proposed. One of the things they said to me had to do with how much they had spent on advertising. My response was that the advertising must have been doing them good, certainly worth more than what they spent with us, because they kept renewing it.

I think the same applies to your hard earned dollars spent on 2+2 books. Why would you keep buying them if you didn't think that you were benefitting from them and that their value to you was worth more than their cost?

MM

Hi chillrob:

Just to point out, those of us who are members of Two PLus Two Management feel that insults towards any member of Two Plus Two Management should be taken seriously with little tolerance. As for insults towards others, we mostly rely on the judgement of our moderators to make those decisions.

I'll also use your post to announce that I've written an article about a hand I recently played that illustrated some of the ideas as to when it's right to three-bet and when it's not right. This article will appear in our November issue of the Two Plus Two Online Poker Strategy Magazine.

Best wishes,
Mason

Unrelated to this topic, but if we believe there is a typo on one of the pages Small Stakes Hold 'em do we just PM you?

if it matters, the book says "fifth printing April 2017" on the first/title page.

Hi Aku:

You can always send me a private message through this website. However, what exactly is the type-o, or am I missing something?

Best wishes,
Mason

page 101-102 "Backdoor draws"

Text refers to a backdoor heart draw with a suited hand and one of the suit on the flop. However example on the bottom of the page shows 5 4, next page shows K Q 9. Language refers to a backdoor heart draw.

sorry what I wrote about the edition/printing wasn't the typo. just a reference to which book I have