Leggo Poker Every Tool You Need To Win

sauce123

Apr
01
2013
My foreword to Matthew Janda's upcoming poker book
Posted in Poker | View Comments (29)
 

Hey guys,

About a year and a half ago, Matthew Janda invited me to contribute a foreword to his upcoming poker book, Applications of No-Limit Hold em' which focuses on GTO 6max no limit play (to be published this spring by 2p2 publishing, see http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/33.../#post37793214). As a GTO player myself, I was both excited to read the content of the book and to contribute a foreword. Since then, I've read multiple drafts of Applications and talked extensively with Matt about poker theory and I'm very impressed both with Matt's knowledge of theory and with the quality of his book.

Unfortunately, the foreword I submitted was rejected by 2p2 publishing and they decided to publish Applications without it. I've decided to publish the foreword here, and I hope it gets some of you guys excited for Matthew's book.

I've attached the foreword since the graphics show up poorly in blog format. I also had to zip the file due to the forum's restrictions on file size, sorry for the inconvenience. It's in .doc and .odt.

This was meant to be a (relatively) finished draft of the foreword, but there are still a couple of typos and the graphics are inconsistent, etc. I hope you guys enjoy it, I was trying to give a relatively digestible introduction to the value of game theory in poker for advanced (but not expert) players. There's some information in there which should be new for most of you, and even if you're familiar with some basic GTO concepts, the foreword (hopefully) will show GTO is more useful than it might appear at first. Let me know what you guys think, and especially let me know if you're pumped to read Applications!

-Ben

Digg this Post! Add Post to del.icio.us Bookmark Post in Technorati Spurl this Post! Google Bookmark this Post!
Comments 29 Email Blog Entry  
Comments
04-01-2013
aejones is offline aejones
aejones's Avatar
incredibly well written and insightful obv, for this to be not used for whatever reason is a joke; im sure something written in it rubbed the 2+2 powers that be the wrong way.
04-02-2013
King Dan is offline King Dan
Fantastic endorsement, I will certainly pick up a copy!
04-02-2013
achabra12 is offline achabra12
Nice! I was a little disappointed when I read in the 2+2 thread a couple days ago that they weren't including your Foreword. But I'm glad that I was able to read it here. This is definitely the most excited I've ever been to read a poker book.
04-02-2013
desire is offline desire
desire's Avatar
this is just fantastic new
04-02-2013
desire is offline desire
desire's Avatar
news that is
04-02-2013
jdogg is offline jdogg
How do they figure out how much a bot is "maximally exploitable" for? Nice foreward btw.
04-02-2013
heAdstroMan is offline heAdstroMan
heAdstroMan's Avatar
what is the price range for this kind of literature?
04-02-2013
grogheadflow is offline grogheadflow
grogheadflow's Avatar
Really well written, really looking forward to the book. Cross Slansky at your peril though!
04-02-2013
heAdstroMan is offline heAdstroMan
heAdstroMan's Avatar
nice, foreword, book shud b awesome!
04-02-2013
davisimo is offline davisimo
How on earth did they decide that this endorsement was not worthy of inclusion? You even paid lip service to big Dave!
04-03-2013
TheStudent is offline TheStudent
TheStudent's Avatar
On 2+2 they said it was too late to include it since they want to release it pretty soon.
04-03-2013
TheStudent is offline TheStudent
TheStudent's Avatar
Nice foreword! Was already planning on buying it, but I am sure it convinces some other people.
04-03-2013
matsvenjes is offline matsvenjes
Where ? When ? How much ? :-)
04-03-2013
whorunthis is offline whorunthis
Nice, even more excited for it now! I've never looked forward to an upcoming pokerbook, except now.
After seeing Jandas videos on CR, it became kinda obvious that the book is gonna be a must read. Learned alot from those videos and I'm sure the book is gonna be clearer and easier to study.

Thanks for publishing the foreword!
04-04-2013
yegor is offline yegor
Quote:
For any game, there exists at least one optimal strategy.
wrong. this is simply not true. even more, there's no proof that nash equilibrium(if that's what you call 'optimal strategy', otherwise you need to define it) exists in nl hold'em. though it may exist for HU, many people doubt it exists for 6m
04-04-2013
sauce123 is offline sauce123
yegor- I'm not a mathematician and I don't claim to understand Nash's proof, but I'm under the impression that 'For any game there exists at least one optimal strategy' is what he proved. To be clear, I'm calling "strategy" an equilibrium. Here's the quote from the wiki on Nash Equilibria: Nash proved that if we allow mixed strategies, then every game with a finite number of players in which each player can choose from finitely many pure strategies has at least one Nash equilibrium. It seems like 6max nl hold em is a game which has a finite number of players, therefore it seems like it should have an equilibrium strategy.
04-05-2013
dozeer is offline dozeer
yegor - what? are you tryin to say Nash got it wrong?
04-09-2013
andy2001 is offline andy2001
People Who think Nash doesn't apply in theory to 6 max are often under the mistaken belief that if you make a play that can be part of a Nash your EV can never get worse if other players are not playing in a way which is a Nash equilibrium with you.

But all you really need for a 6max Nash equilibrium is a situation where when all players are playing a Nash equilibrium, no SINGLE player can increase their EV by changing there strategy.

But If a few players change their play a player still playing what was the Nash play before can still have a lower EV when the other players have changed there play than when every one was playing the Nash equilibrium they had been playing.
04-16-2013
Tackleberry is offline Tackleberry
Tackleberry's Avatar
@andy2001: I think thatīs wrong. If strategy A was the nash strategy and there existed a strategy B that would lower the EV of strategy A, then A wouldnīt be nash in the first place. Thatīs the definition. Do you disagree?
04-16-2013
joaoavf is offline joaoavf
Hello Ben,

First of all, congrats for your foreword, it is really good and it is a pity it won`t be published.

Second, there is something I find interesting but I can't understand in at all. Why is poker more like chess than rock papers and scissors? Could you give an example that illustrates this?

I always thought that a GTO strategy EV in poker was 0, now I have a lot to think about it.

Thanks,

Joao
04-16-2013
joaoavf is offline joaoavf
By example I mean one example of an exploitable strategy in a game of poker and if possible an explanation on why a GTO strategy is +EV in this case.

Thanks
04-16-2013
andy2001 is offline andy2001
Tackleberry below is a link to part of a Yale game theory course with an example of a multi player game with multiple possible Nash equilibriums. Starting at about 14min 30secs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pglQ_E0g8PY
04-17-2013
uknowplayon is offline uknowplayon
Quote:
Second, there is something I find interesting but I can't understand in at all. Why is poker more like chess than rock papers and scissors? Could you give an example that illustrates this?

I always thought that a GTO strategy EV in poker was 0, now I have a lot to think about it.
Quote:
By example I mean one example of an exploitable strategy in a game of poker and if possible an explanation on why a GTO strategy is +EV in this case.
I'm struggling with the same
04-17-2013
joaoavf is offline joaoavf
After some thought, I found one example that is actually pretty obvious: folding 100% of hands.

It seems like spots where you fold to much, you are using dominated strategies. Though, I wonder what is folding too much in this sense.

Still, it would be very nice if someone could come with a different example other than folding too much, or give more detailed insights about the folding idea.
04-22-2013
IcyPots is offline IcyPots
Quote:
If we have an idea of what the optimal 3-bet calling percentage is, then this information can be used to encourage us to 3-bet more aggressively for value (if she’s calling too much) or bluff more aggressively (if she’s folding too much).
LOL, girls can't play poker.
04-22-2013
sauce123 is offline sauce123
Joao, uknow- The key difference is that in RPS there are no dominated strategies. In chess, there are tons of dominated strategies- for example opening with the pawn on the side. (correct me if I'm wrong chess people )
04-25-2013
joaoavf is offline joaoavf
Hey Ben, thanks for the response. I was wondering if there are any dominated strategies in poker besides folding 100% of hands (or something less but still way too much/ any idea on what the way too much is?)
04-26-2013
Rolling chances is offline Rolling chances
nice forward there Sauce, its good to see you make a blogging appearance, if we could just a few more of dem vids...
06-30-2013
RoundMid is offline RoundMid
This is what deuces craced coach Oliver Improva said about Applications of No limit Holdem:

"That book has absolutely nothing to do with GTO and is a waste of time. I was happy when the book got released and people would start shoving A5s and XC with "unexploitable" frequencies.''

Any comments?