Matt Janda Poker Theory Q&A: Wednesday May 22 at 19:00 CET

    • BarryCarter
      BarryCarter
      Headadmin
      Headadmin
      Joined: 13.01.2011 Posts: 4,963
      Matt Janda is one of the sharpest minds in poker coaching and Game Theoretical Optimum (GTO) and this week he joins pleno1 to answer your questions in an exclusive live coaching for Gold+ members.

      He has also kindly agreed to give away three copies of Applications of No Limit Hold'em, which promises to be a game changer and has a foreword from Ben 'Sauce123' Sulsky.

      This really promises to be a master class in optimal poker theory and a unique opportunity for our Gold Academy members which is not to be missed.

      Matt will be answering your questions on the night, but if you want an even better chance of getting them answered, post them right here right now.

      Please also use this thread after the seminar to post your feedback!

  • 86 replies
    • metza
      metza
      Bronze
      Joined: 28.01.2012 Posts: 2,220
      To what extent can "GTO" actually be used given that Poker is such a complicated game? Is there much value in using GTO against a weaker opponent who can be exploited by non-GTO plays?

      How relevant is a HUD in higher stakes games where people are constantly adjusting and re-adjusting?
    • rdmnick
      rdmnick
      Bronze
      Joined: 08.11.2010 Posts: 463
      6max - Open Limping SB
      Do you plan on doing any content on how to construct a balanced/optimal limping range in SB vs BB in 6max?
      *There has been a lot of talk/discussions about these ranges
      *Several highly respected players use them, and clearly they're sound in theory.


      6max - Minraising UTG/MP/CO
      I know some players advocate min-raising from all positions, and a lot of succesful players seem to be adopting this strategy. Question is, is this sound in theory?
      *We do invest less to win the same amount preflop or see a hand to showdown. (Likely this could improve our EV - but I guess it might be tough to quantify for the early positions)
      *Players should be inclined to defend more hands since their pot-odds improves, but given UTG's chance of stealing succesfully and the tiny requirement from BB to defend enough, does this really affect us?


      Closing the action
      Would you consider flatting a few premiums for the sake of balance in BB vs BTN despite closing the action?
      Some state that in GTO we should in theory flat a few premiums such as AA and KK, whereas some state that we shouldn't because our range (although wide) in BB vs BTN will be dynamic and robust enough for premiums not to play a high enough of a role when it comes to postflop for us to have an incentive to flat. The few boards where such premiums actually would matter (low boards) are not frequent enough to argue them ever to be a flat.

      I realise I am not a gold member at pokerstrategy and thus wont be able to take part of this, but if anyone find these questions interresting enough you could just quote me and hopefully there will be some answers. :)
    • barbeysize
      barbeysize
      Gold
      Joined: 27.06.2008 Posts: 15,500
      what proportion of exoitable vs somewhat optimal play should we have in our overall strategy on low stakes (100-200nl) for both preflop and postflop (maybe even different for each street)?

      in what kind of spots we should tend to play by gto? some board textures (Jhigh monotone? :coolface: ), action (3bet pot oop with iniciative?) or frequency (flop cbet or river raise)?



      ps: so how exactly you're going to distribute this 3 books?

      sorry if it is unappropriate to post this here.
    • JCSeerup
      JCSeerup
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.12.2010 Posts: 1,039
      Originally posted by rdmnick
      6max - Open Limping SB
      Do you plan on doing any content on how to construct a balanced/optimal limping range in SB vs BB in 6max?
      *There has been a lot of talk/discussions about these ranges
      *Several highly respected players use them, and clearly they're sound in theory.


      6max - Minraising UTG/MP/CO
      I know some players advocate min-raising from all positions, and a lot of succesful players seem to be adopting this strategy. Question is, is this sound in theory?
      *We do invest less to win the same amount preflop or see a hand to showdown. (Likely this could improve our EV - but I guess it might be tough to quantify for the early positions)
      *Players should be inclined to defend more hands since their pot-odds improves, but given UTG's chance of stealing succesfully and the tiny requirement from BB to defend enough, does this really affect us?


      Closing the action
      Would you consider flatting a few premiums for the sake of balance in BB vs BTN despite closing the action?
      Some state that in GTO we should in theory flat a few premiums such as AA and KK, whereas some state that we shouldn't because our range (although wide) in BB vs BTN will be dynamic and robust enough for premiums not to play a high enough of a role when it comes to postflop for us to have an incentive to flat. The few boards where such premiums actually would matter (low boards) are not frequent enough to argue them ever to be a flat.

      I realise I am not a gold member at pokerstrategy and thus wont be able to take part of this, but if anyone find these questions interresting enough you could just quote me and hopefully there will be some answers. :)
      Game Theory Optimazation means basically that you play the most optimal way with your range and have the most optimal countermove ready for the most optimal move by your opponent. That way perfect GTO means 0EV vs. The middle of our opponents range and makes it impossible to play since we can't play perfect which is why "Game Theory Optimal" is kind of misleading since we are not solving poker.

      So to answer you question if the most optimal way to play a certain range of hands in SB is to limp, then limp that range, but don't do it to mix up your play.

      I'm not sure what the most optimal betsizes is tbh, but I don't think it's optimal to min raise from utg since we are most likely to be OOP.

      Don't mix up your play, if you were playing perfect GTO you could tell your opponent what you were going to do and at least be breakeven and make profit every time he make a mistake.

      These answers might be different if you are playing another strategy, so this might not be adjustments you should make on your cuttet strategy.

      I'm not an expert so it might not be totally correct, but this is my best answers.
    • Schnitzelfisch
      Schnitzelfisch
      Bronze
      Joined: 08.11.2008 Posts: 4,952
      Hi, I've watched your videos on "optimal preflop ranges", constructing 3betting/flatting ranges for SB vs BTN, BB vs BTN, etc. and constructed the majority of the preflop ranges.

      I would like to ask you what do you think would be the relevant next subjects to learn (from your videos) for the postflop play? I have a very basic knowledge of NL, don't know exactly where to start.

      Thanks!

      -SF
    • rdmnick
      rdmnick
      Bronze
      Joined: 08.11.2010 Posts: 463
      Game Theory Optimazation means basically that you play the most optimal way with your range and have the most optimal countermove ready for the most optimal move by your opponent. That way perfect GTO means 0EV vs. The middle of our opponents range and makes it impossible to play since we can't play perfect which is why "Game Theory Optimal" is kind of misleading since we are not solving poker.

      So to answer you question if the most optimal way to play a certain range of hands in SB is to limp, then limp that range, but don't do it to mix up your play.

      I'm not sure what the most optimal betsizes is tbh, but I don't think it's optimal to min raise from utg since we are most likely to be OOP.

      Don't mix up your play, if you were playing perfect GTO you could tell your opponent what you were going to do and at least be breakeven and make profit every time he make a mistake.

      These answers might be different if you are playing another strategy, so this might not be adjustments you should make on your cuttet strategy.

      I'm not an expert so it might not be totally correct, but this is my best answers.

      GTO has so far been defined in more than one way I believe. As far as goes, GTO doesn't necessarily mean 0EV as part of game theory dictates we must always take the most +EV line for every hand. However if applying the concept of "ficticious play" where one strategy adjust to the other which then re-adjusts, etc. We'lll eventually arrive at a point where neither strategy has an incentive to change, and this is what people commonly refer to as game theory optimal. But once arriving at this point, depending on the specific scenario, there is nothing in game theory that says one player (thus both) have to be 0EV against each other, one player can have a higher EV than the other, yet both be playing GTO. However, this is dependant on the situation/scenario, what GTO states is simply that neither player can increase their EV by further changing their strategy in this specific spot.

      Limping in SB is generally believed to be far more optimal than raising, by this I mean 100% of our proceeding range, not just the hands we don't consider worth of raising. As for "don't mix up your play" I'm not sure what you're referring to but I assume it is related to my question regarding limping. I'd like to point out to you that this strategy as stated above involved limping our entire proceeding range, probably in the range of 60-70% hands, this strategy thus does not involve adopting a mixed strategy where one raises a part of his range, and simply call the other. However, even from a game theoretical standpoint, a mixed strategy isn't necessarily bad, it certainly would require a lot more work and it would be harder to balance but it could still be done from a GTO perspective. The question whether a mixed strategy is more effective than a fold/raise strategy or a fold/call strategy is difficult to answer, either way my question did not concern itself with a mixed strategy.

      As for minraising from all positions, I don't think you have enough insight to answer this question I'm afraid. However, any opinion/input is always appreciated, so thank you.

      My questions were simply strategic concepts that I wanted to have discussed/validated from a game theoretical perspective.

      Happy grinding mate :)

      Edit: I realise I sound way too negative in my response to you, sorry about that mate, I'd like to blame it on the fact that I just came from a rough session. Hopefully you're running a bit hotter than I am, hehe. GL :)
    • JCSeerup
      JCSeerup
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.12.2010 Posts: 1,039
      Originally posted by rdmnick
      Game Theory Optimazation means basically that you play the most optimal way with your range and have the most optimal countermove ready for the most optimal move by your opponent. That way perfect GTO means 0EV vs. The middle of our opponents range and makes it impossible to play since we can't play perfect which is why "Game Theory Optimal" is kind of misleading since we are not solving poker.

      So to answer you question if the most optimal way to play a certain range of hands in SB is to limp, then limp that range, but don't do it to mix up your play.

      I'm not sure what the most optimal betsizes is tbh, but I don't think it's optimal to min raise from utg since we are most likely to be OOP.

      Don't mix up your play, if you were playing perfect GTO you could tell your opponent what you were going to do and at least be breakeven and make profit every time he make a mistake.

      These answers might be different if you are playing another strategy, so this might not be adjustments you should make on your cuttet strategy.

      I'm not an expert so it might not be totally correct, but this is my best answers.

      GTO has so far been defined in more than one way I believe. As far as goes, GTO doesn't necessarily mean 0EV as part of game theory dictates we must always take the most +EV line for every hand. However if applying the concept of "ficticious play" where one strategy adjust to the other which then re-adjusts, etc. We'lll eventually arrive at a point where neither strategy has an incentive to change, and this is what people commonly refer to as game theory optimal. But once arriving at this point, depending on the specific scenario, there is nothing in game theory that says one player (thus both) have to be 0EV against each other, one player can have a higher EV than the other, yet both be playing GTO. However, this is dependant on the situation/scenario, what GTO states is simply that neither player can increase their EV by further changing their strategy in this specific spot.

      Limping in SB is generally believed to be far more optimal than raising, by this I mean 100% of our proceeding range, not just the hands we don't consider worth of raising. As for "don't mix up your play" I'm not sure what you're referring to but I assume it is related to my question regarding limping. I'd like to point out to you that this strategy as stated above involved limping our entire proceeding range, probably in the range of 60-70% hands, this strategy thus does not involve adopting a mixed strategy where one raises a part of his range, and simply call the other. However, even from a game theoretical standpoint, a mixed strategy isn't necessarily bad, it certainly would require a lot more work and it would be harder to balance but it could still be done from a GTO perspective. The question whether a mixed strategy is more effective than a fold/raise strategy or a fold/call strategy is difficult to answer, either way my question did not concern itself with a mixed strategy.

      As for minraising from all positions, I don't think you have enough insight to answer this question I'm afraid. However, any opinion/input is always appreciated, so thank you.

      My questions were simply strategic concepts that I wanted to have discussed/validated from a game theoretical perspective.

      Happy grinding mate :)

      Edit: I realise I sound way too negative in my response to you, sorry about that mate, I'd like to blame it on the fact that I just came from a rough session. Hopefully you're running a bit hotter than I am, hehe. GL :)
      GTO is not necessarily the most +EV play in every situation, it's just the most optimal countermove from a theoretical point. And in theory we should be 0EV playing GTO, because we build the strategy around opponents who plays optimal against us, and we will then be +EV everytime our opponents deviate from the optimal line. And to make our range balanced we should be 0EV vs the middle of opponents range, thats why an GTO graph will be breakeven SD-winings an profit in non-SD winnings.

      GTO is not the strategy we want to play all the time, we should mix it with an exploitative strategy whenever we can exploit our opponents.

      Limping from SB might be a good strategy, since we will be unexploitable, but we will also be OOP every hand vs. BB and if BB knows how to play in position I just don't see this being the most optimal strategy, It might be a good strategy at mid-stakes+, but below I think it's better to open raise, but I haven't really seen anybody use this strategy and argue why this should be the best way to play, so I don't have that much to say beside my opinion. But I know that against some opponents it is profitable to open 100%, but that is again exploitable, but an example of where we want to deviate from GTO.

      Limping from SB might be profitable vs. some opponent, but vs. other opponents you can open 100% profitable. I haven't really seen this concept of limping our entire range from SB, but then again I don't follow that many different players.

      As for min-raising every position you are right I don't have insight at all, this might be more relevant to 6-max, which I don't know much about.
    • rdmnick
      rdmnick
      Bronze
      Joined: 08.11.2010 Posts: 463
      GTO is not necessarily the most +EV play in every situation, it's just the most optimal countermove from a theoretical point. And in theory we should be 0EV playing GTO, because we build the strategy around opponents who plays optimal against us, and we will then be +EV everytime our opponents deviate from the optimal line. And to make our range balanced we should be 0EV vs the middle of opponents range, thats why an GTO graph will be breakeven SD-winings an profit in non-SD winnings.

      GTO is not the strategy we want to play all the time, we should mix it with an exploitative strategy whenever we can exploit our opponents.

      Limping from SB might be a good strategy, since we will be unexploitable, but we will also be OOP every hand vs. BB and if BB knows how to play in position I just don't see this being the most optimal strategy, It might be a good strategy at mid-stakes+, but below I think it's better to open raise, but I haven't really seen anybody use this strategy and argue why this should be the best way to play, so I don't have that much to say beside my opinion. But I know that against some opponents it is profitable to open 100%, but that is again exploitable, but an example of where we want to deviate from GTO.

      Limping from SB might be profitable vs. some opponent, but vs. other opponents you can open 100% profitable. I haven't really seen this concept of limping our entire range from SB, but then again I don't follow that many different players.

      As for min-raising every position you are right I don't have insight at all, this might be more relevant to 6-max, which I don't know much about.


      "it's just the most optimal countermove from a theoretical point" A countermove would mean exploitative - and the most optimal would mean the most profitable one, thus there's nothing that dictates 0EV in GTO not even from your own definition. The fact that we're to make villain indifferent in certain spots with certain parts of our ranges don't necessarily mean we're to play a scenario at 0EV.

      And limping, again I refer to my previous inputs, and the only thing I'd add is sure, if a player is folding far more than he should in theory allowing us to raise 100% of our range, then yes, raising will most likely be more profitable. If the player is however a very good player from a theoretical standpoint (despite what you may think, this strategy makes more sense the better your opponent is), then limping is most likely going to be superior.

      Your answers arent very relevant really, but I still thank you for your replies mate. :)

      Edit: I just realised you play NL10, and I must say it's quite impressive that you're already aware of the fundamentals of GTO at your level, keep it up!
    • JCSeerup
      JCSeerup
      Bronze
      Joined: 14.12.2010 Posts: 1,039
      [QUOTE]"it's just the most optimal countermove from a theoretical point" A countermove would mean exploitative - and the most optimal would mean the most profitable one, thus there's nothing that dictates 0EV in GTO not even from your own definition. The fact that we're to make villain indifferent in certain spots with certain parts of our ranges don't necessarily mean we're to play a scenario at 0EV.
      [/quote]A countermove is not necessarily exploitative, we can have a mathematical GTO solution as a countermove which is what the meaning of this strategy is. And the optimal GTO countermove vs. an unknown opponent is not necessarily the most optimal countermove vs. a known opponent, that is why we won't to deviate from GTO when we can exploit an opponent.

      I realise that we are moving away from the question, and I'm getting a bit confused, and I will let someone with more experience in GTO take over since I realize I only touch the surface of this strategy. :)
    • circe
      circe
      Bronze
      Joined: 18.03.2005 Posts: 1,495
      Do you rather flat call or 3 bet 22 -TT from The Button versus unknown Players?
    • V1per13
      V1per13
      Silver
      Joined: 05.10.2009 Posts: 1,180
      How should we defend our BB if we are playing against agressive reg BTN 50%+ minraise steals, who knows that by flatting our range is capped of strong hands and he can exploit it?
    • gadget51
      gadget51
      Bronze
      Joined: 23.06.2008 Posts: 5,622
      Looks like the discussion will be lively guys!
      Looking forward to that very much.

      Mal.
    • jules97
      jules97
      Bronze
      Joined: 10.06.2012 Posts: 1,449
      Why should we buy your book and who is it aimed at?


      I heard about your book from sauces blog and thought I'd pick it up when ti comes out. His canned foreword convinced me :f_cool:
    • pleno1
      pleno1
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 19.11.2010 Posts: 5,596
      so much cool stuff, moar moar moar guys.
    • rofelmat0r
      rofelmat0r
      Bronze
      Joined: 06.09.2008 Posts: 4,502
      Originally posted by Schnitzelfisch
      Hi, I've watched your videos on "optimal preflop ranges", constructing 3betting/flatting ranges for SB vs BTN, BB vs BTN, etc.

      I would like to know how I can go about constructing the remainder of preflop ranges myself (like SB vs UTG, SB vs MP, BTN vs UTG, BTN vs MP...) for 3betting/cold calling.

      Thanks!

      -SF
      #

      will there be a podcast to download afterwards? have no time today :(
    • pleno1
      pleno1
      Coach
      Coach
      Joined: 19.11.2010 Posts: 5,596
      Keep em coming guys.

      Matt is the absolute nuts and this really is going to be one of the best seminars weve ever held.
    • yegon
      yegon
      Silver
      Joined: 23.02.2012 Posts: 3,045
      your thoughts on 3betting 22-55 in late positions like BTN vs CO or BB vs BTN?

      do you think they can be played profitably as a coldcall in some situations vs good regs (maybe based on open sizing/position)?

      If not would you allways 3bet them rather than fold them vs a good reg?
    • acetbfish
      acetbfish
      Bronze
      Joined: 11.03.2011 Posts: 804
      -How close is the SB's and CO's opening range?

      -Could you please explain why our 3bet bluff range should consist of the hands which are too weak to call but too strong to fold? Does it has something to do with the equity we have against villains range?

      - Since playing in position (especially on the button) will generally earn us more money than playing out of position, why not raise and 3bet bigger IP and smaller OOP?

      -How playing according to GTO isn't exploitable since our range in some situations (eg being in the SB and calling an open raise from the CO) is pretty clear?

      -Is a HUD really necessary at higher stakes?

      -Do you think NL 6max cash will ever be completely solved or the good players will always be able to make money?
    • Itsmemario88
      Itsmemario88
      Bronze
      Joined: 04.11.2012 Posts: 397
      Calling 3bets with small pocket pairs IP! ?
      Depending on villains range + his sizing how do you decide?


      Construct your defending range based on your Openrange!!??

      Wondering if your approach has changed though, read donkr articles in the past.

      You have to defend x% of your range, that your not autoexploitable. So you construct your range based on that. If you open for example 30% you try to defend lets say around 12% depending on villains 3bet size.
      I mean i think this way of thinking is wrong...you still construct your ranges that way?
      If yes why?

      I mean i think diffrent about that and build my ranges depending on villains 3betrange and I dont care how much I have to defend....

      For example, might be stupid example cause its kinda unreal.
      We assume villain can just 3bet or fold to make it easier.

      I open the BU 100%, because villain is just 3betting 10% and folding the rest 90%. I fold to every 3bet so i fold 100% to 3bets (wont even happen cause i wouldnt fold AA KK...)
      If i would want2be able to defend a certain % of my range I would have2open far less to be able to defend around 35% of my range. So i would probably open 45% and defend 35% so around 15% range. (maybe i could open a little bit wider and defend more).
      The thing is my profit is a lot lower cause i loose a lot of bb/100 by not stealing the maximum.



      Would rly be interested in that + can someone record it or is it possible to somehow watch it another day????