[joethepro]

just got the book yesterday and am nearly finished reading it. i must say i am happy that someone has put down in words, concretely, many things that i have been loosely, sometimes inconsistently, applying to my game.

there are a few things i wanted to ask about.

SPR and Multiway pots

first, although you do address this issue in the making adjustment section, what mathematical shortcut can you make to SPRs in multiway pots?

i'm not a math guy, but it would be nice to make a quick on-the-fly adjustment for number of players in the pot.

for example, regular SPRs divided by number of OTHER players in the pot. So if you're playing 1 player with Top Pair who plays neither tight nor loose it would be the suggested 4 or 4/1 = 4. but if it was a 3-way pot 4/2 = 2, which would change your target SPR to 2. Obviously the number 4 changes depending on the looseness of the players in the pot.

do you have a suggestion for a short-cut?

3-Bet Equity

you mentioned making bet sizes preflop to reach target SPRs and although this is great the closer you are to the button, i would think the closer you are to being UTG it gets increasingly difficult to predict how the SPR will turn out with so many people behind you.

in early position, do you not so much try to reach a target as just bet and see what the SPR is on the flop and then make the adjustments?

i find that sometimes in early position, with AA or KK it's better not to make preflop adjustments to target SPRs and instead bet EXACTLY the standard preflop raise of the table. This lowers the respect you get from your raise because they've seen that size so many times now (i play on short handed tables) and sometimes induces what i term 3-BET EQUITY. someone behind you may reraise you to which you can then 3-bet, when if you had made a large preflop raise to gun for your target SPR you would get ppl fold the hands they were going to make a move on you with.

this would be more true with an aggressive table, whichis important for 3-BET equity in general (betting standard or very small in order to induce a reraise).

Stack Size Position

you mentioned buying in short to make reaching target SPRs more easily achievable, but then you lose out on the benefits of a deep stack. one of the main points of SPRs, would you agree?, is to make simplier, those all in decisions and commitment thresholds. but i only usually find myself in those tough decisions when i'm out of position. so would it be more beneficial to find a table with short stacks to your immediate left.

so would it be best to buy in max, have shorts on your left and deeps on your right. this way you can minimize awkwardness for those on your left and manipulate awkward SPRs for the deep stacks on your right.