lololol

@@JMTavares7 I'm picking up on your sarcasm.

It already is. This is what happens when people learn math, and try to justify how MATHEMATICALLY, low stakes "don't work." You CAN and I DO make plenty of profit at 1/3 and 2/5 tables!

@@willh4340 yeah the point that people are not getting is at low stakes people make enough mistakes that are big enough and often enough to make up for the drop or rake.

Halleluiah!! There is a whole generation of terrible players from sitting home during covid and watching Poker live streams and Poker Blogs. I welcome more of their kind.

They are basically just super OMC Nits. Playing at a table of 7 of them and 1 of you would barely be profitable after rake.

Love your podcast my man, hoping you see a couple David’s on your next session!

Can't we just get a lump of coal?

@@1vailchris absolutely

Best comment of the year😂 gold

@@1vailchris sorry that options not in the cards

I'm suggesting it to the poker room manager as making it accompany whatever cash prize the player already gets if they make it to the top 3, 5, final table, or some such level that warrants it. Keep more people playing those so the edge available exceeds the house take % on the buy-in, and in turn make the cash games better at the same time. It's win-win. Well, more like win-win-lose.

There was no no-limit in Vegas back in the 70s

@@leviwhatever6192 au contraire. There was a game at the Nugget, also they got going during the Series. Always very deep by modern standards.

wait until your first 2000bb downswing

I’d prolly throw you around on the felt 😂😂

@@Daniel-fo9jf wdym first..............................?????? It can happen again?? Ohhh nooooooooooo

I'm buying this book for everybody in my home game :)

Fo good players play 1/3 or did they move on to higher stakes?

I mix it up by underrepping too. They end up doing the betting for u.

If you haven't yolo 4/5 bet cold shoved some nit and shown 53o or whatever your "that's my lucky hand haha", once or twice...you're doing it wrong. The tourists won't fold even if you play QQ+ face up, afterwards.

More like when a limit OMC writes a NL book.

I am not sure Mr. Hanson is an OMC. He definitely is an OM, possibly has the C, but I don't think his play style is as nitty as a real OMC. You get it, like real OG, but instead of OG, I used OMC. It's funny because they start with the same letter.

@@jeffshackleford3152 Ok, at this point you've thrown the letters around enough, possibly with sarcasm or humor, to the point where I'm going to ask you to define what they mean, haha. Oh, but I'm serious at least on this... OMC = ??

@@Trephining OMC = Old man coffee = that 60+ year old man that literally only plays AA and KK, so about 1 hand per day OG = Original Gangsta = in gang culture one of the founding / near founding members of the gang, usually command great respect, can also refer to the longer standing members of a gang as well.

YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOREVER TO GET THEM CARDS MAN:

This is the mancave version 2.0, I assume. That bookshelf thing was very tasteful and elegant, so his wife must have been the designer there 😂

Haha brilliant!!!

But I will say that the preflop limping with strong hands, is ridiculous, and should not be part of any sound strategy. Get as much money in the pot as possible, while you have huge equity! If it ends up 4 ways, you have over 25% equity, if it goes 9 ways, you have over 11% equity. Sklansky knows that. So, if he gives up that EV by limping, he is clearly on a variance-reduction mission, pretty much set mining and peddling the nuts. I can win using many strategies, and that is one of them. But it's neither the most fun way, nor the most profitable, for me. Yet, I know old guys for whom it IS the most fun way, because the chance of running out of poker money before the next Social Security direct deposit, is minimized. They like to break even or win a little or lose a little, while getting to play as much as they want, drink as many free drinks as they want, tip the waitresses A WHOLE DOLLAR as much as they want, eat free food off casino points, etc. Being a nit enables some people to spend more time playing, than if they unsuccessfully attempt to become GTO crushers with higher variance. You don't need to be a genius, to play at the average skill level of a low-stakes table, while also being two or three notches more selective preflop. At many games, that is all that it takes to win and beat the rake.

I'm glad they called him out by name, or I probably wouldn't have heard about this. Bart doesn't strike me as an attention whore like Doug Polk, and wouldn't insert himself into something that had nothing to do with him. The hand examples are laughable. Sad too, because 2+2 publications were my foundation during the early 00's poker boom.

@@jonathongravitt6902 I recommend you read Mason's first post more carefully, especially the paragraphs before the hand examples. Most posters here and in that thread missed the point. Why they played those hands the way they did will be explained in the book. In a nutshell, they're playing some hands differently than most winning players would because they're exploiting certain situations and tendencies. Whether they're right to do so is hard to judge without reading the explanations. But given their track records, I wouldn't bet against them. They both didn't suddenly go nuts. Give them the benefit of the doubt for now.

@@GRice999 Oh, I read the whole thing, and the damage control and defensiveness from the authors is hilarious. They were either going for some provocative promotion and it backfired horribly, or they have let the game pass them by. Honestly, they went from just repeating "read the rest of the book and you will understand the genius of limp/folding KK to "Sorry, we will not be responding to this thread anymore until the book has been released" TO POSTING THE Table of Contents. I love it.

@@jonathongravitt6902 Mason always posts the TOC of new books and also excerpts. You reading anything into that suggests you're new to the game. As far as not getting into the weeds with the explanations for their actions, it kind of makes sense. Why get into long debates with people who might later agree with you after reading their rationale?

@@GRice999 Ok, sure, maybe they have some [possibly lengthy] explanations that will wind up making these hand examples make sense in a strategic sense. But how about the glaring lack of information given within the hand examples? Missing community cards, player position, stack sizes, etc... does the book also explain why that information is immaterial? Or why remembering that information for analyzing one's own play is unnecessary? Or do the other strategic considerations contained in these 'explanations' render all that information irrelevant somehow? I'm definitely willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I used some of Sklansky's books as the foundation of getting started back in 2000-2002, pre-Moneymaker days, when Vegas had lots of Limit Hold Em and 7CS was spread a lot more.

The quote was “wide range of the players”

Even then think about what "player types" means. It effectively means the hands they are playing/bet sizes. So in the end it is effectively the same statement.

I haven't read the thread yet, but as stated by Bart, I interpreted it the same as you--various types of players. And Bart stated that Mason clarified that later in the thread. "Wide range of players" is different than "wide ranges of players." But I can see how someone might misinterpret that.

@@GRice999 In the thread it says "wide range of the players" I don't know how the interpretation of that can be disputed. As opposed to "wide range of players" vs "wide ranges of players"

@@CrushlivePoker My point is that when people say "wide range of players" they mean "wide range of playing styles" i.e. old man coffee, hoodie online player, dirty hands construction worker with a beer in his hands. And when we break down what that means, it actually means (a) the range of hands they are playing (b) bet sizing (c) frequency. Meaning another way to say old man coffee is, someone VPIP 10 - 15, raising large preflop, betting when they have it and big. So my point is I don't see any point in the distinction. At their root they are the same thing.

Their plays are shit, its not about not being balanced, its just all post-hoc rationalization of being passive nits. Also Mason and Sklansky don't know anything about balance or GTO, they are so old they could never figure out how to run sims and are too lazy to learn

Peddle the nuts and make money. This might be the books title.

Folding KK for balance. They'll never suspect it.

I don’t think so. They are just making illogical plays and passing it off as exploitative

You know a good cure for that? Bet KK Pre!

@@dingusmcpheeEXACTLY!!

While he replies, he mentioned it here, with a short stack, ur limited to playing a boring, tight style of play.

not if you read the book @@theejayzeeable

If everyone goes multiway like that, just raise larger? even if it's to $30, if everyone calls you're getting tons of awful hands to put in a ton of money. If all but 1-2 people call, you've accomplished your goal of thinning the field. People limp-calling like crazy is great!

@@jacevincent2574you beat me to it… Exactly

@@jacevincent2574 I'd rather play a tournament if I'm going to shove every turn I see.

​@jacevincent2574 absolutely. Gotta read the table and adjust accordingly. I like to mix up my raises. Small raises for hands that I don't mind multiple callers, like suited connectors, and larger raises for premium hands to get the garbage out. This allows u to be more creative with your play and is just alotta fun also.

@beesting23 There's really only one time when it's acceptable, and that's when there's a maniac to your direct left who will attack limps every time and a bunch of dummies behind him who will always call his raise trying to trap him.

I have a limp-3B range from UTG when playing 1/3 at a loose table. It's not something I'll employ all the time, but used sparingly, it can be effective. The point isn't getting calls, it's avoiding situations where you're playing AA/KK multi-way and OOP, vs being able to get stacks in pre flop with a LAG in LP. The issue is the stack sizes. The 1/3 games I play are $500 max buy-in. A typical open is to $15. If you get 3B, it's to $45, sometimes more. This makes 4B sizing awkward, in that the standard 3x size is pot-committing, such that most pre-flop 4B's are just all-in. Having a limp-3B range allows me to be the 3B'er, putting the pressure back on the LP raiser to figure out an optimal response. The tactic has the added benefit of isolating dead money from EP/MP over-limpers and anyone who cold-called the original raise. Again, it's not something I do a lot, but in the right game, it works well, and can be massive EV.

@@snex000 Those people usually aren't folding to a single raise often, either. They also are the kind of people who will get annoyed if you keep raising and 3 bet you.

@@Jermo484 Neither are the dummy "trappers" behind them folding. But go ahead play 1 pair in a 7 way pot if you want.

@@snex000 did you just suggest that limping to try to limp raise is going to get fewer players involved than just raising yourself? Lol.

There is no such thing as "not GTO" because even if you're being "exploitive" which means betting more/less, raising wider/tighter, you have to ask tighter/wider compared to what? Betting larger or smaller compared to what? It is compared to the main line, i.e. GTO. When people say exploitive vs GTO it simply means they don't understand the words they are using. Not because they don't know how to beat the game but rather because they haven't really thought about the meaning of the words and terms they are using. Charlie for example says "fuck GTO" and I've not doubt he plays well but he doesn't know what he is talking about when he says that because exploitive is GTO. Lastly if you exploit someone it just means you're creating a new GTO range adapted to their range. So the term is just wrong from all directions and only serves as a place holder for "I deviated from the main line"

@brianwilson7624 not sure if you were responding to another comment, but who said anything about there not being GTO?

@@brianwilson7624 You mean that there is no such thing as GTO. Every hand of poker ever played in non-GTO. What you are describing is exploitative play by definition, even if you think you're playing optimally given certain exploits. Also, your assumptions can be wrong and you could actually be losing EV with your "exploits". Even if you know for a fact what your opponent's range is in every given situation (which you can't in practice), you don't know how he'll respond to your actions or what action he might take. Solvers assume rational opponents making rational decisions, but no human is fully rational. An expert at exploitative play will do much better than anyone thinking they're playing optimally given certain exploits.

​@@GRice999 You missed my point (not saying it was your fault). I'm saying when you "exploit" someone. What does that mean? It means you think they are raising to wide/thin calling too wide/too thin betting too large/small. Now my deliberately provocative question is (a) "compared to what" and that is GTO. If you say "he opens too wide from the BTN" you mean he opens to wide compared to the main line and thus you'll deviate in some fashion to exploit him deviating from the GTO opening range (could be any range, this is an example). And thus exploitation still references the main line. (b) there is no GTO opening range, GTO is a toy game that starts with a particular opening and collapses into equilibrium. Thus if you are exploiting someone, you're exploiting them from equilibrium, which really means in your head, you've adjusted the mainline range the opponent would have if he was at equilibrium (for that bet size) assigning him a new range you believe is more accurate and then creating a new GTO response to his opening. Thus from two separate lines of logic, you are still using GTO. If you go to GTO Wizard you can assign different bet sizes and opponent ranges and given certain ranges you will be losing money if you just play the collapsed equilibrium of the static, non-relevant GTO size. Meaning, if you play the GTO line of 100BBS effective in BB vs BTN open of 2.5x vs someone who is opening 4x you are going to lose money. You need to know the GTO range vs the 4x open. Intuitively you could still assume because the play opens 4x from the button he sucks, adjust on the fly to be tighter and play the range generally the same as the 2.5X defense and you'll probably be fine. The reason the main line looks like it does is because the simulations have battled each other with various opening ranges and bet sizes and the one that makes the most money against an opponent who is constantly shifting strategy is the popular main GTO lines you see today, there is a reason people don't open for 6x and it isn't because it hasn't been tried. This is also why you shouldn't jump right into equilibrium unless you know the opponent is already playing equilibrium and playing it well. You should exploit the opponent as much as you can as his play style falls into equilibrium, for most people their play will never reach equilibrium so you should exploit them and take the money and run. An example of this would be rock paper scissors, toy game. A balanced approach is to play everything 33% of the time. However, if you know your opponent loves to play rock then you should play paper and rock. If you know you will only play three hand you should only play paper. If you know you'll play 100 hands you should play mostly paper but near the last 50 you should mix in rock and paper. If you know you'll play 10k games you should start to mix in all three and by game 5000 you should be playing around 33% for everything (assuming the opponent has adjusted or near adjusted), you don't jump right into 33% right off the bat, you beat the shit out of your opponent all the way down until he reaches equilibrium

@@matthewhardy3682 You said "not saying gto is the end all be all" which means you think GTO and Exploitive are two different things. Which they are not.

Just don't go. Casino niagara has $14 session fee, which is the only acceptable rate in Ontario.

​@@adamqu334714 per hour or 14 per actual session? Might be about the lowest rake in the world if it's per session

Ya that’s the problem though, not everyone can drive to Niagara to play. 3 hours each way to play some 1/3 lol

@@drewstrongitharm9680 I've heard there are some poker rooms in toronto with only $6 rakes. I just play in a lot of different home games, but yeah, Woodbine's structure is really disappointing.

The Electronic tables at Woodbine used to take $3, no dealer to tip or make mistakes, 30 second shot clock and 60 hands/hour. Ah the good old days.

Absolutely true. Stacking off with an 8-high flush is bad. And if you're capable of bet-folding it, bet-folding it to a bluffer who knows that, is even worse. An opponent doesn't need to have you dominated (or figured out) very often, for Mason to be right that folding is possibly best, and is certainly the lowest-variance way to play it.

You have some great points, where do you play at?

@@brianwilson7624 I used to play primarily at Foxwoods, but now I'm on the other coast and play at Thunder Valley.

@@daithi1966he’s asking because he wants to take your money

Maniac behind you raising 100 percent of hands...

@@GosuTricksno dumb

Depending on rake Bud. Usually match the stack games are tho

Of course they're beatable. As the average pot size that you personally get involved in goes up, rake matters less and less. Sklansky's real point, is to play big pots you've got a good chance of winning. Which I agree with, I just disagree that limping KK and AKs preflop are a reasonable way to create big pots. Personally, my main theme is to get as much money in as I can, while I am a favorite. So, I don't disagree with the KK fold on the flop, because he's just simply not a clear favorite, and might be drawing very slim. Anyone who flopped a set, straight, or even a pair and straight draw, has him in a bad spot.if he calls down like a frog in a pot of water they turn the heat up on, on each street.

You played thousands of hours and don't know what the rake is?

Jonathon Little is an example and I think raise your edge. Both of them do not use the ranges they suggest on their website and there are videos of both of them explaining that they think it is dangerous for amatures to try and implement the correct ranges. There is a video where Doug is interviewing with Ben about DNegs HU match and Ben tries to say "I don't know why Daniel tried to implement the exact preflop ranges. He should have simplified the ranges so he would make less mistakes postflop and pre". And Doug just destroys him by saying "If you don't think you have an edge against someone, I don't think it is a good idea to start off by deliberately making mistakes preflop". There is ego to their teaching strategy too, it is "I can learn this strategy but it is too hard for you". Another example is GTO wizard, they have the ranges vs optimal play but they don't use those ranges. For example 45BBS deep ICM/half the field gone, they will give the GTO line of 3bet 10bbs +1 for every limper. When in reality the optimal GTO line is smaller than that and if you start banging off 10bbs raises with ajs+ 99+ from SB to BTN you're going to get more folds than that line intends to get and thus you should be raising a wider hand range or raising smaller (which is what the actual coaches on that site do and they call it exploitive, but it is not exploitive it is GTO but vs the correct range, a range they do not show you on their site because they want to keep it to themselves)

@@brianwilson7624 Interestingly I have a poker coaching premium membership and I have had a lot of success in the 3 months I’ve had it. Jonathan little was one of the coaches that said other high profile coaches teach less then optimal strategies and questionable exploits…. 😬

Ghost writer

(a) you're thinking too binary (b) hero does not have a lot of aces because yes, many are raising preflop (c) how many ace highs are calling three streets without raising. (d) There are not a lot of jacks that bet that river for value though, KJ is probably it because the other ones get value owned. I'm assuming Bart would agree that the only jack that is betting the river is KJ, TJ would probably C/C. It is more about "how often" does something happen vs "does he have x or y" because the opponent always has x or y, it is just a matter of how frequently he has that and what strategy we are going to apply to attack that frequency.

@@brianwilson7624 copy. That makes sense. What do you think his river lead sizing should’ve been?

I like Sklansky, but I agree that those limps are simply terrible. Get money in while you have huge equity!

google gamblers fallacy. That is what you are experiencing sir

You playing at Elite? My experience in Houston (different rooms) is NOT nitty players but instead lots of loose passive (think 50-3 VPIP/raise preflop), with the occasional gambly LAG mixed in…

You might want to rethink playing there. Not because rake is so much worse, but because rake is illegal in Texas and that room might be getting raided soon.

@richgaro485 Next door at Legends its the morning crew. The later day players aren't as nitty but are equally passive.

@snex000 Not sure how legal it is, but they started a jackpot and I believe that's the excuse they use to rake the pots now.

@@thaThRONe Unless 100% of that money is going to the jackpot, there's no way this is legal in Texas. The house cannot profit directly from the game.