New Book Announcement

Let's see, we have books like the Fundamentals of Poker and Applications of No-Limit Hold 'em: A Guide to Understanding Theoretically Sound Poker. Who do you think these books were for?

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1880685671/?be...

https://www.amazon.com/Applications-No-L...

And going back to The Theory of Poker, given that the word "theory" is in the title, you would expect the book to be a sophisticated work.

I called it that to surprise/please/amuse my father. No other pro or con reason even entered my mind.

I would expect the word theorem to be used correctly in a sophisticated work.

I don't mean to go off topic, but did your craps book discuss dice influence at all?

I know it is a controversial subject, and most seem to believe that dice influence does not exist, or to gain a discernable edge would require skills virtually no human possesses.

I bring it up because the general theme of your earlier books at least was how to gain an edge. Outside of cheating I know of no way to gain an edge in craps other than through dice influence.

I'm not completely sure what you mean by dice influence, but the answer is no. However, in my Gambling Theory book there is a chapter titled "The Myth of The House Advantage Revisited" that may be getting into some of what you mean.

https://www.amazon.com/Gambling-Theory-O...

The purpose of the Fundamentals of Craps was to explain to casino goers how the game of craps worked, what all the different bets were, and a reasonable way to play it for fun. It's presented as an unbeatable game.

I'm not even the first person to point that out on 2+2, so I question how much you've looked.

Right. Another great reason not to use a mathematical term like theorem especially when the authors might not completely grasp what it means.

This statement is beyond stupid. I do have both a Bachelors and Masters Degree in Mathematics from a very legitimate school (Virginia Tech). Are you saying that I don't know what the word "theorem" means?

You said the first you ever heard about the fundamental theorem of poker not being a theorem is when I mentioned it.

No. I said that you were the first person I'm aware of to make this complaint. I never commented on whether it's a real theorem.

Lol ok, if you want to play that game. You're presumably a person so why didn't you have that complaint?

By "influence" I mean throwing the dice in such a way to alter the distribution of outcomes in favor of the thrower.

That's fair. I only bring it up as I recall you looked at gambling games with a mathematical slant. In the case of craps it is amazing to me how very small influence (in % terms) on the uniform distribution of die outcomes yields such a tremendous mathematical advantage for the thrower.

The game was not meant for the 21st century, and sure enough crapless craps (with its 5% house edge) seems to be taking over Las Vegas. And I don't blame David for inventing it.

Fair enough… the response to my criticism is straightforward then. The author didn’t really care if theorem applies and was not really taking things all that seriously. On the other side you end up looking a bit ridiculous if you try to appeal to a resume and claim the word theory in the title implies sophistication

Let me explain something else to you relative to how publishing works. On most Two Plus Two books, the copyright is held by Two Plus Two Publishing LLC. This means that I can make simple word changes without the author's permission. (By the way, I always try to work with the author before something likes this gets done.)

For The Theory of Poker. the copyright is held by David Sklansky, and it's that way for a few other of our books. This means I can't make a change in wording unless the author agrees.

And one final thing, The Theory of Poker, which is clearly one of the most important and impactful books ever written on poker, has lots of words that appear on many pages. For an author to look ridiculous, you need to consider everything that's written as opposed to one word that you don't like.

That doesn't make any sense. I said you looked ridiculous when you wrote

I don't need to read everything else you've written to make that point. You could had said at the very start "Of course your point about the word theorem not applying is valid but.... whatever reason" that could potentially be fine. But you didn't just do that and simultaneously appealed to your mathematical credentials while not acknowledging the fact that it's normal for any math literate person to expect a proof when something is called a theorem.

I also coined the term (I think) The Fundamental Theorem of Investing. Here I believe I was on more solid ground. It is the idea that you should be much more hesitant to make an investment or a bet if you can't explain why so many people are willing to take the other side (The explanation could simply be that few people know a piece of information that you have,)

Everyone remembers the Fundamental Theorem of Poker in TOP. But you also wrote something else that deserves to be called a Theorem just like Beluga's and Zeebo's. Sadly I've lost my well read copy of TOP so here it is paraphrased: "It doesn't matter what range you have your opponent on or what the action has been up to this point. When your opponent commits an act that can only represent one hand; until shown otherwise that is indeed the hand your opponent holds". Over the years I have witnessed the truth of this statement thousands of times (I play 2/5 or less so YMMV).

(I'm pretty sure you wrote this in TOP. But I'm old. It might have been written in NLHT&P)

Again, no. You should call it a law or principle because it's not really something you could prove.

I strongly disagree with that "theorem" anyway based on experience but that's another conversation.

A similar principle in zero-sum games involving 2 teams: if you have choices A or B, and your opponent prefers A, then you should choose B. And of course vice-versa.

It seems blatantly obvious, but watching football games it amazes me how often coaches screw this up.

Sometimes thinking what your opponent wants you to do makes the correct choice much clearer.

For those interested. The manuscript is now complete and we'll probably have it up as a printed book on Amazon in about 10 days. Then 10 days after that the kindle should be available. And then another week later the audio version should be available.

The title we settled on is No-Limit Hold ’em: Interesting Topics Not Normally Addressed.

Flashback, Forbes article from 2013:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/20...

Here's the Table of Contents.

Table of Contents

About David Sklansky v

About Mason Malmuth vii

Introduction 1

Part One: Technical Ideas 3
Introduction 4
GTO Betting and Bet Sizing 5
GTO Bet Sizing on the Later Streets 9
Also Consider Your Opponent’s Range 11
Preflop First-In Raising 14
A Note on River Bluff Sizing 15
What is Game Theory Trying to Accomplish? 17
Maximizing Bets or Calls 20
Two Game Theory Fallacies 23
Why Are Mixed Strategies Not Fifty/Fifty? 26
The Power of Raising 28
Violating the Minimum Defense Frequency 31
Simple GTO Hates Hold ’em and Omaha 34
Calling in a Three-Way Pot 36
Precision When Using a Balanced Strategy 38
Range Protection 41
Bluffing Frequency and Multi-round Game Theory 43
Specific Bluffing Frequencies 46
A Note on Betting Draws 48
A Note on GTO EV 50
A Note on Pot Equity 51
What Makes a Value Bet 53
Correct Buy-in? 55
Another Problem With GTO 57
A Note on Comparing Win Rates 59
Does Luck Balance Out? 61
Bankroll and Great Players 62
Win Rate and Variance 64
How Many Winners? 66

Part Two: Cash Games 69
Introduction 70
Good Statisticians Error on the Conservative Side 71
Indifference and Exploitive Play 73
Win Pots Without a Showdown? 75
Where the Edge Comes From 77
Deep Stacks and Your Opponent’s Range 79
Tightening or Loosening Your Opening Range 81
Worst Mistake 83
A Simple Hand that Illustrates Several Concepts 85
Big Bring-ins 88
When They Move In Preflop 91
......Some All-in Match Ups 92
Move-in or Wait? 94
The "10-to-1 Rule" 96
Thwarting His “Set Mining” 98
Are Straddles Ever Profitable? 100
An Ace-King Suited Hand 102
Ace-King When 3-Bet 106
Folding Kings 110
Floating 113
“Protecting Your Hand” Fallacy 117
“Donking” the Flop 119
Four Flush 121
Betting to Build the Pot 123
When No One Bets the Flop 125
The Small Multiway Thrust 127
Taking The Next Bet Into Account 130
A Note on Reverse Implied Odds 133
“Donking” the River 135
Check Call, Check Call, Bet as an Underdog 139
Stack Sizes 141
A “Maniac” At Your Table 143
Pseudo Maniacs 146
When They Won’t Bluff 148
When They Won’t Bluff or Raise-Bluff 151
Large Equity Versus Small Equity 154
Dealing With Tiny Bets 157
A Little More on Tiny Bets 162
Why Do the Pros Often Bet More Than You? 164
Four Handed on the Turn 167
The Turn Checker 170
Your Opponent Always Bets The Turn When You Don’t 173
Two Similar Important Situations 176
Small River Bet in Last Position 178
Don’t Overbet the Pot When Your Opponent Shows Weakness 181
A Surprise Full House 183
A River Bet 185
Ace on the River 187
When Good Players Bet Big 189
A Simple Hand? 191
Another Example 194
Showing Your Hand 197
A Note About the Rake 200
Good Game Selection 201
The Fallacy of “Happy Tilt” 203
A Few Quick Hands 205

Part Three: Poker Tournaments 211
Introduction 212
Asymmetric Heads-Up Hands 213
Bounties 217
Bubbles, Assessing IQs, Etc. 220
Should You Burst Your Own Bubble? 223
The Tournament Late Enterers 225
Grabbing Some Cash Out of Thin Air 227
Stop ’n Go Play 229
A Big Tourney Move-In 231
A Play Way Outside the Box 233
A Late Tournament Limp 235
An Example of When Good Players Also Bet Big in a Tournament 237
Finishing Second? 238
Milestone Satellites 239

Conclusion 241

should pocket 99 be betting or checking flop on 963 without a suit ? I believe that's played as a trap

When playing GTO you should be thinking in terms of your total range, This would bring a set of nines to a small value bet.

If playing exploitively, depending on your opponent, this would often be a check.

I am almost positive it depends on how deep you are and a little bit of which villain you are facing. How come you guys didn't include this very important information? Is it not important? I am very surprised you guys are giving GTO hand history reviews while ignoring stack depth.

I am pretty sure that by pure betting here you are playing exploit poker yourself because you aren't balancing your range. Villains can learn after a bit that you never check sets, which means you are exploiting the player pool and also leaving yourself up for exploitation as well. Does that make sense to you guys?

You guys didn't print the book yet did you? Hopefully there is still time for you guys to fix these issues.

Needless to say, once you incorporate stack depth you will need to redo your GTO calculations.