Book Review: Killer Poker by the Numbers, by Tony Guerrera
 

Hi Guys,

I had a traumatic experience recently -- I actually read, in its entirety, “Winner’s Guide to Omaha Poker” by Ken Warren. After 208 pages of 14-point font, we learn that hand selection is indeed important when playing Omaha. How rare in a poker variation!

So I swore off the hype books. I therefore would not have read this “Killer Poker” book before I realized the author was an undergrad buddy of mine and I got curious.

What follows is hopefully not just a book review, but the basis for some interesting no-limit discussion. (And incidentally, while the title does not specify, the book centers around no-limit cash play.)

Chapter 1: Analytic Tools, begins with the following question: suppose you have A K, raise pre-flop, and have N opponents. Supposing these opponents hold two random cards, what is the probability at least one will hit an unpaired flop? Table 1.1 is the first of many great tables in this book, and it tells us that N = 1 => 65% likely nobody hits, up through N = 9 => 1% likely nobody hits.

Then Tony asks: Suppose you make a 2/3 pot continuation bet: how many opponents can you have before this bet is no longer profitable, assuming your bet is called/raised if and only if (iff) an opponent pairs? Answer: N = 2 is slightly profitable, and N > 2 no longer profitable. This example ends with the author critiquing his own assumptions (e.g., that players will call your pre-flop A K raise with two random cards, play back iff they hit one pair or better, etc.) and cautiouns that all such models should have their assumptions questioned.

In pp. 20-30 of the same chapter, the author tells how to do the probability math to determine commonly asked hold ‘em questions, e.g., he demonstrates that there are 19,600 possible flop combinations, of which 5,676 contain an ace or king. If you know the math or just want the answers, you can skip this stuff. But for those who like solving these problems for themselves and/or forgot how to do these calculations, it is solid material.

Chapter 2: EV & Odds gives begins the process of how to logically put your opponent on a hand based on his actions so far. E.g., pre-flop he would call with this distribution, but when he raises your flop bet we can narrow it to this smaller distribution, etc. Pot odds, reverse implied odds, expected value, and so forth are all well covered here for those needing a refresher. More good stuff.

But in this chapter arises my first problem with the book: I think a lot of the formatting and notation is poorly chosen and makes parts of the text unnecessarily dense. Example 1: Opponent is on {9 9+, A Js+, A K} would appear in Killer Poker in interval notation:

[AA, 99] || [A Ks, A Js,] || [A Ko].

Minor, perhaps. A bigger problem to me is the use of MCU charts to describe hands. I prefer paragraph form, the 2+2 format, … just not these cumbersome two-page charts.
Also, Tony, on p. 60, are you suggesting it’s never correct to open-limp from late position with a low pocket pair?

Chapter 3: Unpaired Flops & Paired Flops has an excellent slew of probability tables pertaining to how various flops are likely to have hit N opponents on specific distributions. E.g., “Table 3.9: Approximate Probability you’re beaten when against N player on the [JJ,22] || [AK, AJ] || [KQ] Distribution when the Flop is A A 3 and you hold J J.”

I believe this is also the chapter where the author introduces the phrase “hit to win.” He goes on to give details about his style of play which are good, but I fear a new player seeing that phrase over and over could be in trouble if he is playing a deep-stacked full ring game and is willing to get all his chips in with TPTK against heavy action. I find “hit to win” a misleading phrase.

Chapter 4: Hit-to-win Poker with Pocket Pairs: More solid probability tables pertaining to Hero holding a pocket pair, e.g., Table 4.8 giving the probability of hitting an unpaired, “nondangerous” flop as a function of that pair. (Tony goes into some detail about what constitutes a dangerous flop). Hand analyses, such as the dynamics of deep-stacked overpair versus flopped set play (pp. 141-149), are very thought-provoking – but they require serious effort to wade through the unbroken text, MCU charts, interval notation, PX player labels, and tree diagrams.

Chapter 5: Drawing Hands Derives pre-flop probability of flopping all sorts of hands – 1 pair, 2-pair, made flush, etc. The post-flop outs material is more thorough than most, as the author considers the effects of redraws extensively. More strategy is discussed, such as the merits of betting out from early position with draws, the “14-outer principle,” and semi-bluffing. Regarding the latter and bet-sizing, for instance, Tony writes:

“If the amount you bet with your semi-bluffs and your made hands is identical, you make it very difficult for your opponents to make optimum decisions … If you are playing against opponents who allow you to bet less with your semi-bluffs (say 40% of the pot) without being aware and without fighting back … you are getting fold equity and you are getting to draw for the cheapest price possible….”

He goes on to note: “By betting smaller in relation to the pot, some opponents will think that you are trying to trap them. If you can draw for less and simultaneously increase your fold equity, then you are getting the best of both worlds.”

Good stuff.

Chapter 6: Shorthanded Play I am not a short-handed cash strategy expert, but the advice seemed quite sound. For instance, the section “Third Time’s the Adjustment” … so suppose the first three times you post your big blind, the button open-raises to 3 BB. Tony shows that by the 3rd time this happens, you can be pretty sure this tendency of the button’s is exploitable due to the improbability of his having a legitimate hand (he gives distribution details I’ll omit here) three straight times.

I have to disagree with the rule stated on p. 237, however, which states:

“Never Buy in for Less than 25 BB in a game with a 100+ BB Max Buy-in when you Opponent has 100+ BB”

Sklansky/Miller go into exceptions in NLT&P, and I have a yet-unpublished article on precisely this topic. Needless to say, the statement is far too extreme.

Chapter 7: Tournament Play Discusses tournament play, of course. Gives the most important difference between tourney and cash, namely chip EV versus $ EV. Pre-flop matchup probabilities are a dime a dozen, but for good reason, and Tony’s are pretty extensive.

What I like most about this chapter, however, is the sophisticated discussion of approximations usually taken for granted. Through analytic means and computer simulations, Tony shows the merit (or lack thereof) in accounting for clumping, independence, and overcallers. Consider clumping -- the idea that if players start folding behind you, they are more likely to hold weaker hands, and so subsequent players are more likely to hold stronger hands. If you want to know if there is any merit to this idea, check out the two-page Table 7.7: “Clumping Errors as a Function of the Number of Folders in Front of You.”

Chapter 8: Closing Thoughts Short and interesting chapter on pot commitment and live poker jackpots. Tony asserts that in tournament play, many players call due to seeming pot commitment when in fact, they could fold. I like this sentiment, but disagree with the specific example given:

Tournament down to 5 players. Blinds 1000-2000. You have 7000 left, remaining players all between 3BB – 8BB stacks. Wide pushing distributions, narrow calling distributions. You are in the big blind with 8 3o and the button open-pushes for 3500. The SB folds.

Tony suggests folding despite the incredible pot odds, because the extra 1500 chips you are risking will dramatically decrease your stealing fold equity if you lose. I appreciate the meta-concerns here, but the way I see it, you are getting way better odds than you need; if you call and lose you are right back in after a single double-up; and you could win, placing you among the chip leaders and in prime position to aggress.


Also, each chapter ends with problems followed by Tony’s solutions, and they tend to be very interesting ones. Here are two from Chapter 6.

Problem #1: 4-handed $200 buy-in NL game with $1-$2 blinds. Hyper-aggressive maniac is raising to $15 or so almost every hand. You and he both have at least $200 behind you. What hands should you play and how should you exploit this guy?

Problem #3: $100 buy-in, $0.50-$1 blinds. 5-handed. You have K K in the big blind. All fold to the button, who is playing shallow with $25. He raises to $5. You are running software that says he has seen 9% of flops and raised 1% over a 200-hand sample size. The small blind folds. What’s your play?

I paid $11 for this book. There appear to be three other editions listed on Amazon for $25 and up (the $11 version can be found specifically at:
http://www.amazon.com/Killer-Poker-Numbe...64&sr=8-2).

I want to end this review with an objective statement:

If you play any form of no limit hold ‘em, then even if you happened to disagree with every single piece of strategy advice Tony gives, the probability reference material alone will still make buying this book for $11 a +EV decision.


Best Regards,
Collin

Re: Book Review: Killer Poker by the Numbers, by Tony Guerrera
 

Nice review. I agree that the notation is frustrating and hopefully will be changed for a second edition.

Re: Book Review: Killer Poker by the Numbers, by Tony Guerrera
 

God, I'd forgotten about him using MCU notation.

This is the only poker book I ever gave up on half way through.

Re: Book Review: Killer Poker by the Numbers, by Tony Guerrera
 

The MCU charts are a little unfortunate, but they do a good job of conveying the information more deliberately (in my opinion). In any case the book does a great job with the mathematics, and there's a lot to glean from it.

Not saying it's better than NLTAP, or that NLTAP is better, or whatever. I just think this one belongs on your shelf, too.

Re: Book Review: Killer Poker by the Numbers, by Tony Guerrera
 

I think Ken warren is on to something. Sometimes I feel that pre-flop play and post-flop play are like really important in flop games. Perhaps I should write a book on the subject [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

I think I could've saved myself some heartache by sticking to 2+2 books + SS2 + D&B books. My poker book collection would be cut in half and I wouldn't miss a thing.

Cheers,

Smurf

PS: Killer review, Collin. Thanks, man! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Book Review: Killer Poker by the Numbers, by Tony Guerrera
 

Great review. I'm through the first couple chapters, and like you said, there is some practical advice in there.

from pg. 100:

of the connectivity categories the only situation that we are possibly unhappy with is when a made straight is already possible

Here the author is describing your equity given different flop textures (according to # of possible straights and straight draws possible on the flop) and number of opponents when you hold a set.

Although he says the probability your opponent has a made straight is small on a 765 board when you hold 55 (the assumption is that your opponent has a lag/wide range), when you can narrow your opponents range after the flop, your equity changes drastically when a made straight is already possible. This is heavily dependent on how high the board is too.

The excerpt reminds me of a hand I played the other day, which illustrates this point very well IMO:

I was in a $2-$5 B&M NL game.

I had a conservative image and had been playing tightly due to a bad run of cards. I was dealt QQ in the CO and I raised a late/middle position open-limper.

The limper had been playing very straightforwardly and was quintessentially tight-passive.

We both had > 200BB stacks.

It went HU to the flop with ~ 10BBs in the middle.

The flop came KQ9r, giving me three Queens.
He checks and I bet 2/3 pot, and he c/r me.

Even though I have a set, my equity is not as good as you might think against this specific opponent’s range because we can narrow his likely hands pretty well:

Since he is straightforward, we can probably eliminate AA and TPTK from his range since he didn’t open-raise preflop from late-middle position. Ditto for 99 (although sometimes I’ll limp in with 99, I saw him earlier open-raise with medium PPs to protect them).

Q9 or K9 is very unlikely because he is tight/passive. He would not call a raise OOP with those hands, possibly if they were suited, but not likely.

KT or KJ or QJ are also unlikely for similar reasons (not likely to call with a garbage hand OOP) but more importantly he would probably not take such a strong line as a c/r against me with my image. He would probably c/c or lead. Check-raises with deep stacks OOP are monsters with this guy, not semi-bluffs.

KQ is also very unlikely b/c there are only 3 combos left. So, after all this deduction (and pretty bold assumptions), we get left with 3 combos of KQ and 16 of JT for his range.

On the flop, I have 43% equity,
If a brick turns, I’ll be ~ a 2-to-1 dog.
If another brick falls, I’ll have 16%.

Granted, these are very strict assumptions (and against most opponents, not applicable), but against a tight/passive, straightforward player (and a physical read) his most likely hands by far are KQ or JT.

Sure, we’re not folding the hand b/c the implied odds are ginormous if he’s sticky (and our equity is too good even if he has a straight most of the time), but if we wiff the turn and he keeps hammering into a small pot, we have to think about changing our gameplan from the normal set-attack mode.

The mathematical material and resulting practical advice the author shares in the few chapters I've read have been pretty useful in getting me to think about hands more precisely.

Re: Book Review: Killer Poker by the Numbers, by Tony Guerrera
 

Tony Guerrera here, author of Killer Poker By The Numbers. Collin pointed out the strengths of my book while, simultaneously, pointing out some of the things that I would have done differently.

Before addressing each of Collin's comments specifically, I would first like to say that behind all the probability calculations, the real point of Killer Poker By The Numbers is to teach people how to think analytically about poker. It's not a book of quick and easy answers...it's really a book that's meant to give readers all the tools necessary for going out and finding their own answers (RobertJohn's post is an excellent example of the type of analysis that Killer Poker By The Numbers stresses).

I analyze many different playing scenarios...scenarios that I think most readers encounter regularly. However, a huge point that I always make is that you can only do meaningful poker analysis in precisely defined situations (where precisely defined does not mean "villian is 40/20/3"). Therefore, the conclusions I reach are based off of playing conditions that I describe as precisely as possible; none of my recommendations for how to play a certain situation should be taken as absolute truths, since I reasonably imagine that you'll encounter playing conditions different from those I describe in the specific analyses I carry out. As I state in the book, Killer Poker By The Numbers is not an encyclopedia of every possible line of play you'll consider when playing NLHE. The point is taking the results I derive and then to use the thinking process I put forth to obtain results particular to the playing conditions you find yourself in.

Having said that, I'll now address Collin's critiques:

Interval Notation: I agree that Interval Notation is clunky in print. It has been useful to me in the past, but I should have used something else.

MCU Charts: All I can say is that these looked better on my computer...the physical dimensions of the book made them clunky in print, but I prefer some type of tabular representation of hands instead of paragraph form. When hands are expressed in tabular form, you don't need to waste time figuring out everyone's stack-size...the information is right there in front of you.

Page 60 (Open Limp in Late Position With Small Pocket Pair): My wording should have been more precise. My intention was to express the notion that you usually aren't getting proper implied odds to try to flop a set. Obviously, some opponents will violate that assumption. Additionally, if you have profitable lines of play not involving hitting a set or better, then open-limping with a small pocket pair is acceptable. Usually, in such cases, it doesn't really matter what hole cards you have since most such profitable lines of play involved stealing the pot postflop (bluff on flop, call with intention of bluffing on a later betting round, etc., etc., etc.).

Hit To Win: Well, I first want to say that "hit to win" isn't my style of play...I really don't have a style of play since I'm always adapting to what my table is giving me. With that said, I should have maybe been more specific, because I definitely don't want my readers getting stacked off for 100's of big blinds with TPTK in deep-stacked games. Whenever I use the term "hit-to-win" I am referring to a type of hold'em game in which you have to show down the best hand. What that best hand is will be determined by the hand distributions you put your opponents on. If you're +EV against those hand distributions, then you're in. If you're -EV, then you're out. When you're playing hit-to-win poker, you aren't engaging in sophisticated bluffs or anything like that.

p. 237...“Never Buy in for Less than 25 BB in a game with a 100+ BB Max Buy-in when you Opponent has 100+ BB”: My statement was too strong, because I agree that a short-stack can be played profitably, provided that you cash out after your double up as Miller suggests.

The strong assertion I made was motivated by a specific heads-up playing dynamic I encountered a ton when playing SHNLHE cash games on Party Poker. Players would short-buy and stay in after doubling up. If you intend on staying in after you double you, then you are effectively donating your initial buy-in minus rake against a deep stack playing as I describe in that section.

83o Hand: The decision on this hand is clearly a function of the metagame considerations for the specific opponents faced. Calling can be justified as you stated, but it's really going to be a function of the end game that your particular opponents are playing. The important idea to be taken away from this example is that you are making a mistake if you aren't considering the possibility of folding. In other words, you may still end up calling, but you shouldn't do so without putting in some serious thought as to what your distribution of stacks will be if you call versus what your stack will be if you fold.

I can't guarantee that I'll checking this thread on a regular basis. Anyone with pressing questions should visit my website and send me an email.

May Your Monetary EV Always Be Positive!

Tony Guerrera

Re: Book Review: Killer Poker by the Numbers, by Tony Guerrera
 

As an european, I am put off by your writing, just present the facts already, don't tell me, that I need a pen or calculator or talk about how difficult but healty the following will be.

It is the Lou Krieger syndrome, treating people like they are children or not very smart.


With regards to the actualy contents, I haven't read much beyond the first chapter due to the above, but I like the idea of the book .... and will force myself to read it. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Book Review: Killer Poker by the Numbers, by Tony Guerrera
 

[ QUOTE ]
Tony Guerrera here, author of Killer Poker By The Numbers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Props to Tony for posting. I hope you realize you're putting your head in the lion's mouth. No worries, though, as I'm sure you've noticed the Sklansky haters in the other threads. What's up with that?

I am fortunate in that I have a job where I can usually get in 2-3 hours of poker book study a day. Your book is currently on the front passenger seat of my car. I'm going to give it another go.

Tell us more about the book you and John are writing together. Is it strictly NL? When is it due in stores?

Re: Book Review: Killer Poker by the Numbers, by Tony Guerrera
 

Gelford,

I appreciate the forwardness of your comment! When I wrote my book, I had to figure out how to make it appeal to the widest audience possible (I need to optimize my sales EV afterall), and the way to do that was to comfort the people who are scared of math. I feel like the book needed to be very slow and hand-holding in the beginning because I needed to bring the non-advanced readers up to speed. I know such an introduction would frustrate readers like you (and myself), but it had to be done that way.

I don't want to start a Sklansky-bashing bandwagon, but I strongly remember something he once wrote in Tournament Poker For Advanced Players. On pages 123-124, he has a parenthetical that reads as follows:

"If you don't know how I got that, stop reading this book right now. You are not ready for it. You don't know enough about poker. And, you deserve to lose."

I take quite a different attitude...I want to write advanced advanced material that welcomes people from all educational and poker-playing backgrounds...I really want to talk to my readers as a friend. It's tough to please all the people all the time, but I tried to do the best that I could do when writing Killer Poker By The Numbers.

To Gelford and all the readers like him, there's lots of advanced stuff in my book once you get through the first chapter. Seeing situations through your opponents' eyes is an important skill at the poker table, so try to envision the writing process I went through in trying to write an advanced book that could appeal to the broadest audience possible [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Tony Guerrera