[HighEV]

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