[JLD]

Matt, Sunny, and Ed,

I really enjoyed reading the book…felt it raised a number of new interesting concepts that I am still digesting. I particularly liked your approach of stating the key idea/takeaway in the text with the qualifier included in the footnotes. Hopefully you take this as a reflection of the substance of your book but I have a number of questions as a result of reading it the first time. I intend to reread it but hoped you could shed some additional light on the following issues as I continue to think about the text. In the interest of relative brevity I have posted three different topics:
SPR Targets and Commitment
The R in REM
Pre-flop Bet Sizing and Target SPRs

As context, I am a low-limit no-limit player who is winning both live ($1-$2) and online ($0.10-$0.25) by playing relatively tight and mostly aggressive. I have read many of the common books. However, I know that I should be earning more so I am working and thinking about how to get better.

SPR Targets and Commitment
I think the thesis that you have to plan your hand from the beginning to the end is a key idea that I did not consider enough previously…as you said my mistake was that each street was largely its own decision point not an integrated whole from beginning to end.

I think the problem I am having is not a disagreement with the central thesis/idea but more in its implementation. As I read the book, I was uncomfortable with statements like pg. 195 “If you then hit the flop (with your target SPR), commit and get the money in as fast as you reasonably can.” The top of the page suggested that an SPR of 4.5 was good against an average player for TPTK hands. I agree that this is a good SPR for me with TPTK against an average player but only if the money goes in over three streets not all on the flop. If all of the money goes in on the flop (I open push, I raise or check-raise all-in, or he open pushes or raises or check-raises me all-in) I don’t think my TPTK is good there almost ever. Maybe my TPTK is good on a coordinated flop against a loose player who I have seen repeatedly semi-bluff aggressively with draws but not against the “average” player at these stakes.

Towards the back of the book you discuss this on page 262 when you mention conditional commitment across three streets and in other places you mention adjusting to new information and likely opponent ranges. Since I agree that the “Average” player at these stakes typically only check-raises with two pair or better (pg. 159), the only way all the money is getting in prior to river is if he has my TPTK beat. However, I can get the same amount of money in good by value-betting (2/3 pot – ½ pot – ½ pot) each street against the rest of his range.

In summary, the same SPR of 4.2 on the flop is good for my TPTK if I get the money in across all three streets but bad if the money gets in prior to the river against this “average” opponent. I think the importance of how the money gets in holds for the other player types as well at their respective SPRs. Of the three, I am probably the most willing to get the money in quickly with the loose aggressive player.

Do you agree with this statement?
Am I giving my “average” opponents too much credit and they are looser than this?
If you do agree with this statement about the importance of how the money goes in (across all three streets versus all on the flop), I think I am missing something in the earlier section about being committed on the flop and therefore willing to get it in as fast as possible.