Lol, it actually helped. My credit card had expired at the end of September and the payment wasn't done before that. Ordered it again, hopefully this time it goes smoothly. 
Notifications
Clear all
Originally posted by Kyyberi
Lol, it actually helped. My credit card had expired at the end of September and the payment wasn't done before that. Ordered it again, hopefully this time it goes smoothly.
Has it arrived yet? Let me know if you have any questions as you read!
Universe doesn't want me to get this book. 2nd order was placed at 7th day, and the book hasn't been shipped yet.
Originally posted by Kyyberi
Universe doesn't want me to get this book. 2nd order was placed at 7th day, and the book hasn't been shipped yet.
This is so odd - did the same thing happen again?
Not same, there is nothing wrong with the payment method. I just hasn't been shipped in 2 weeks.
Originally posted by VorpalF2F
Any chance of a kindle or pdf version?
I really, really don't need another book!Cheers,
VS
Just to let you know, this is now available for Kindle on Amazon. Sorry I can't post a link but hopefully you can find it.
Awesome, got myself that ebook version. Review and thoughts coming up once I have finished it. 
edit: Which is now, will write up my thoughts tomorrow.
Some thoughts about the book:
Regarding of GTO, the book says "you should adjust to exploit weak players, but you want a full understanding of GTO concepts to prevent good players running over you. As you meet better players your understanding of GTO poker becomes more important. It's also vitally important that you understand that GTO poker is a methodology for playing optimally against players who are also playing a strong strategy. Playing such a GTO strategy is rarely the best course of action where your opponents fall short of this level."
I totally agree with that.
Then there is a monster of a sentence presented: "Optimal sub-optimality is the act of playing your hand in a given spot in a way that may not, on average, achieve the best results in terms of profit in that specific moment, because doing so will bring about greater profits in other spots or because it will present a challenge to your opponents which may lead them to make a mistake". And it's said to be the leading thought of the book.
That is nothing new, it's called "creating an imago" and was used by old school players in the past. Good example was to show a bluff in small pot in the early session, to get more calls in big pots. So the idea is not new. But I agree that the concept is really useful, when executed correctly.
One concept presented in the book is "range shanking", and one example is range swapping: "It's fairly straightforward, simply swap around the range of hands you would open in early positions, and the wider range you would open in late positions. Hopefully this will not lead to a change in the number of hands you are playing and so will not materially alter the perception of you".
Not sure if author realizes that most HUD's has positional RFI in them, so the overall number of hands is not important. Of course on sites like RIO/GG where only their own HUD is used (and it doesn't have positional stats) that wouldn't be a problem. But when the hand goes to showdown and opponents see that your UTG range has those wide range hands, the concept is ruined.
The underlying problem in the concept is that when you hit the flop for your weak hands, it's great. But weak hands are weak hands for a reason, they flop weak stuff more often. And then oop with a weak hand creates problems. And it might be that range swapping creates more problems and -EV situation that +EV situations.
Note: This is the exact problem with Yadi's thoughts (which are VERY similar to the author of the book), when the concept works it's great. But when it doesn't work like a charm, the cost is most likely higher than the overall profits. It's like if you win 20bb on average every 10 hands, and lose 3bb on average on 9/10 hands, the concept is not profitable.
Book says "This part is fairly easy. In any given scenario, you can ignore whether you or the villain has a betting lead". This is introduced as one of the ways to break the game fabric (= make life harder for GTO based strategy). This actually shows that author has NOT worked with solvers, as the primal concept in solver strategy is that solver has 0% weight on who has the aggressor or not. It bases everything to the ranges players have in the given situation. If he had used Monker Solver for an example, he would know that when you set up postflop sim it doesn't even ask what was the action on previous streets. It just cares for the ranges.
Regarding huge bet sizes (like 10x the pot), the book uses math to back up how betting pot or 5x pot are close to each other in EV. Author uses the calculation of how often opponent has to win the pot. If hero pots, opponent needs to win 33% of times and if hero 10x pots, opponen needs to win 47% of times. Author says that the difference is small. Well yeah, if we compare 2x pot and 10x pot, the difference in the eyes of our opponent is 40% vs 48% (he rounded down on purpose). But if we look how often our bluff needs to work, the number change. Pot vs 10x, our bluff needs to work 50% vs 91%. So there is a HUGE difference. 2x pot vs 10x pot, 67% vs 91%. Author wonders why thosehuge overbets are not used, and thinks it's because everyone is just used to use smaller sizings and solver says so. The truth might be in the math.
About using solver, book says "One final point on the practical use of solvers. My main issue with the use of a solver is that it requires assumptions about the villain to be made to compute an optimal response. These assumptions about opponents are typically fairly difficult to make accurately - most commonly it is assumed the villain will be playing similar strategy to the hero".
The sentence is true, and it is indeed a mistake a lot of solver worker players do. Solver strategy is the best defense against another solver strategy. When opponent deviates from that strategy, the optimal strategy versus it changes. Good players understand how to deviate themselves from the solver strategy, bad players won't. But to say that the problem is in trying to estimate what opponents do is just nonsense. The whole book is based on the assumption that hero can estimate how opponents react to certain things. Actually, the whole game of poker is based on estimating things, as it is a game of imperfect information. And good players make better estimations than opponents.
In other words, the book says you can become better than the rest by doing weird stuff and estimating how opponents react, but the problem in solver is the difficulty to estimate your opponents. Contradiction there. You can form a player pool analyzing with trackers to modify your solver based strategy, and then use notes etc. to make good estimations when playing.
As I said earlier, the book is based on the idea that if you do something your solver opponents are not prepared to, you put them out of their comfort zone. And then you can exploit them, based on how they react. I really like the idea, and I agree on in. It's just that the concepts that book describes are viewed from only one perspective, the authors. Same problem Yadi had, he showed and example where he opened crappy hand from UTG and hit the full house on the flop and got paid. And just dismissed that 95% of times he either misses the flop or hits something crappy and loses. Author thinks that most of modern strategies are formed with old school poker, where opponents were different. And he totally misses the fact that most strategies are formed because they are profitable and the other strategies are not. There is a reason why our range is stronger from UTG than from the BTN. It's not because someone just said it should be like that, it's because that those who open a lot from UTG lose their money.
I am not a Holdem player, I play PLO. And I can tell you that if you start to play wide range from UTG you will lose your money. No matter how deceiving it will be, mathematically you will find yourself in lot more -EV situations than +EV.
But the book has good overall idea, put players to spots they are not comfortable being in. There is a section about limping, which actually is an interesting idea. Solver players are comfortable, when situations on the table are familiar to them and fits their strategy. In holdem, solver strategy doesn't tell you how to react to overbets. Or if someone starts to limp a lot, with somewhat balanced range. How do you adjust? Or in PLO, what if opponent minraises you with high frequency on the flops? Solver strategy doesn't help you. And we have seen that in Phil Galfond's challenges, they do stuff solver wouldn't. Like betting 1/6 of a pot on the river.
But that's what poker has been since the beginning. Your strategy versus my strategy. If I adjust, you should adjust, and then I adjust and so on.
Final conclusion:
Did the book blow my mind? No.
Was there something I didn't know before? No.
Was there good ideas and concepts? Yes.
Could it be worth reading for someone, who doesn't understand the ideas yet? Yes.
I think it was worth $10 (kindle edition), and it planted the seed to my brain to explore limping and minraising vs. solver based players in PLO. But I am pretty sure that those who didn't knew all the stuff before will lose a lot of money if they try the things in the book. And those who could pull them off profitably already knows all the things.
Too bad you can't use the kindle version to support the broken leg of a table or a chair.
Kyyberi - thankyou very much for preparing such a detailed review. I really value all comments and feedback and a number of your points can bring some debate. I want to take a lot of your points as I do have good responses to these.
1. I think my main overall response is that a number of your comments don't reflect the underlying theme of the book – did you maybe skim some of the opening and later parts and just focus on the meaty parts? The underlying principle is to AVOID playing in scenarios where your opponents are using HUDs and solvers against you and the results are going to be judged over a high volume of hands. I note you read the book very quickly and you might have missed this part.
2. I state very early that Optimal sub-otimality is not new, and ironically the example you give is actually the first example i give in the book. And while accepting it is not new, it is my belief that it is becoming a 'forgotten skill' - because people just aren't talking about it anymore, and my point is that in most environments, its more valuable than nailing GTO, particularly if you are selective where you play.
3. On Range Swapping – I state very clearly that it is difficult to justify mathematically, and that it should only ever be used for a short period, until opponents adjust. I also clearly state the reasons why you wouldn’t normally want to do this. I’m very aware that HUDs have positional data. But they don’t have meaningful sample sizes of things like table positions unless you keep doing this for hundreds/thousands of hands. This is not what the play is designed for, and is not a situation that the book promotes players find themselves in (see 1 above). In fact, the book is very detailed on why this would work (the additional bluffing power carried by a weak hand opened UTG, and the additional value for a strong hand on the button, rather than being about hitting a miracle flop with a weak hand as you mention).
4. Regarding betting leads – I can assure you I have worked with solvers, but this does not mean that the reader has. Many of the readers will still be referencing the concept of a betting lead when they approach a hand, and this is what the book refers to eliminating.
5. Your comment on the huge bet sizes is inaccurate. If you make a massive overbet bluff the win % would need to increase massively for it to be profitable. Agreed. But nowhere does the book suggest that these overbets be bluffs, or that the user is balanced when doing it. It’s a tool to upset the flow (e.g. crude example: villain may be reluctant to 3bet bluff pre if going to face 6x flop donks), not a play that you intend to make unexploitable. This is clear in the book.
6. On solver strategy. The book is not based on making assumptions about opponent’s reactions. Any assumptions needed are simpler to make (and there is a lot of advice on this in the mental aspects section). Assumptions needed for solvers are often percentages or numbers, here it’s usually just a ‘direction’ i.e. will they do this more or less than they should. The actual strategy promoted is based on upsetting them to the point where you can value bet more and bluff less. I set this out clearly where I talk about a new fundamental rule of poker. Therefore there is no contradiction at all.
7. One point that I am keen to stress is that although I am anonymous, these are things that I have been doing, across multiple formats and that I have had a lot of success with. These plays have been having success against high level opponents, over a significant sample size. In particular live tournaments – I had strong runs across multiple live tournaments in 2019 (EPT, WPT, WSOP), and I know they have upset prominent GTO experts at the table. You must understand why I can’t reveal who I am having read this book – it would be disastrous for opponents to understand how I am playing.
8. Overall I’m really happy you took the time to review and am glad you will try to add some of the things to your game. I’ve always said the book is intended to promote debate and set things on a new course and I think as a starting point it’s the best thing out there now.
I did read the book, just skipped the flop examples in the end as I don't even play Holdem. Didn't recall that note on HUD environment when posted feedback. Luckily for you and for us, custom HUD's are slowly vanishing.
Optimal sub-optimality (we need a better word for this) is an old trick, and I agree that it's very forgotten. There are a lot of players that think poker as a volume game, and grind with set strategy. Their approach is that if the strategy is good enough, it wins $$$. Pretty much like a human bot. The higher you go in stakes, the smaller the player pool is and your edge gets smaller. So you have to work more to find spots where you gain edge. Good example is Phil Galfond's challenges. The dynamics in HU PLO were super interesting in VeniVidi match and how both of them adjusted during the match. And then against Bill Perkins he played very differently (we could see the hole cards), and now versus Chance Kornuth Phil is playing once again a bit differently. In Veni and Chance matches, both players are constantly seeking spots to gain more edge.
That's why I think the concept of taking solver players off from their comfort zone and strategy situations works best in lower stakes. Not sure on what level people are executing solver strategy, but would assume it's around NL50, up to NL500.
I forgot to mention that I also agree on that poker needs to address the problem of growing solver strategy. Not because people will learn it, but because the inevitable approach of real time assistance. PLO is a bit safe (due to complexity of calculations) but in Holdem there are already RTA's. And as technology goes forward in hyper speed, it's just a matter of time until someone starts to sell "cheap" RTA that reads information from the screen. We need things to change the game. Splash pots, random antes, and what ever the sites can come up with.
Originally posted by Kyyberi
We need things to change the game. Splash pots, random antes, and what ever the sites can come up with.
I like the splash pots on GGPoker.
Random antes sounds intriguing.
Another one I thought of was have random rake-free hands.
Originally posted by VorpalF2F
Originally posted by Kyyberi
We need things to change the game. Splash pots, random antes, and what ever the sites can come up with.I like the splash pots on GGPoker.
Random antes sounds intriguing.
Another one I thought of was have random rake-free hands.
Yes interesting ideas. There's many ideas out there. One I like is somehow giving some players a third hole card (maybe if they pay higher blinds, or are acting out of position on flop) - although that turns it into some hybrid/mix game format. The problem is that you can never get high influx into new formats right away, and poker sites are also under pressure from grinders (think more rake is better campaign) to keep recs/ new fish flowing into the existing popular games, rather than diverting them to new games. Hence the paradox I highlight - that poker is literally evolving against itself.
RIO created splash pots. And the amount of complaints from regs was overwhelming. So many complained that "how can you know that you get 51% rakeback with STP" or "STP is not poker, everyone goes allin preflop" etc.
It was insane, cos out of all players I thought regs would appreciate it. If you play better than average opponent in STP pots, you win more than the average share of splash. And it gives a new are to gain edge over others. But most just complained and wanted the flat rakeback back. I think one of the reasons is that STP was uncharted area and took them off from their comfort zone.
GG Cash Drop is a bit different, as it's part of the pot (in PLO), creating different strategical situation compared to RIO STP (which is not part of the pot preflop). And GG Cash Drop money is taken from the players over the normal rake, meaning that in reality they rake a lot more and then give a bit more back. Oldest marketing trick in the book.
Hi everyone - Now the dust has settled on my book - Mindblowing Poker, by Professor Poker, I wanted to re-open the discussion on these forums.
We had quite a good debate before - and I have been on a couple of good podcasts to discuss the strategies. I wondered if anyone had any thoughts or comments on this radical new way to take on strong / GTO type players and to prevent the game from becoming 'solved' or stale. This is really important to me, as I don't want the game of poker to die a slow death.
In short we use a dynamic strategy of changing ranges and generally taking villain out of their comfort zone, in order to encourage them to make mistakes, which we are well placed to exploit. There are 8 new strategies, which put a villain in a new spot. If they haven't seen a spot before, they can't respond optimally, and certainly can't review accurately with a solver.
Would welcome any debate
In Super System, (or maybe one of his other books) Doyle Brunson used the term "switching gears" to describe the practise of changing ranges.
You could change ranges to counteract a particular player's tendencies, or you could switch gears to make it hard for them to figure out your tendencies.
GTO seems to me a way to organize this, but seems extremely complicated, and certainly difficult to apply while playing.
In his day, he was playing 1 table, with the same opponents for hours at a time..
It's a bit different now...
Yes I agree - I think I'd like to inspire the poker community to move back to playing lower volume and thinking more creatively about their plays - rather than multi-tabling so much and needing to play like robots!
Originally posted by theprofessorpoker
I wondered if anyone had any thoughts or comments on this radical new way to take on strong / GTO type players and to prevent the game from becoming 'solved' or stale. This is really important to me, as I don't want the game of poker to die a slow death.
Just my humble opinion:
I would gladly see online poker die out at this point.
Give me live play in a casino anytime:
- You can make sure that you play against other humans
(in case of doubt, pour a glass of water over the head of a suspect, to make sure he is not a bot)
- Play around 25 hands per hour live instead of 250 online
- Play your opponents rather than by (their) statistics
- Get decent reads on your opponent
(play more than just your cards, intimidate/ confuse your opponents, etc.)
- Have some fun chatting/ socializing instead of just playing like a zombie
- Have a fair edge, even when you don't play much hands
Pssst, run jij ook onder EV? 
Dat heb ik nou nooit! 