# Mr Thomas

27 points

The math you are talking about takes like 5 minutes to learn if you want. It is not like it is advanced or anything like that. You can probably find a video on youtube or similar that can teach you it.

You proably should do it because it is like the fundamentals of poker to know this. All your decisions somehow should involve this "math".

This is why I have tried to get an answer (without succes) from you about what method you use when you construct ranges. Just saying you do it by "feel" does not explain anything to me.

I do not believe it is possible to construct close to optimal ranges playing by "feel".

### Jan. 5, 2014 | 3:46 p.m.

JTo hand.

At the time when the hand was played out, what was your check calling range here on flop? (Not the most optimal range someone has created by doing sims or similar please) Also, what was your plan on river? Reason I ask question in this way is because you sometimes are a "feel" player and it is much more interesting to know what you would do, not what sims suggests us to do.

The last hand (AJo):

You said that you defend your checking range with AK and AQ. What hands do you defend your C betting range with then?

Why would you even consider lead shoving river when klonking top two if you are bluffcatching on turn?

What turn betting range did you put him on at the time when you played the hand? If he bets turn with only x amount of semibluffs that draws out on us sometimes or y amount of  valuebets that has us beat 100 percent. Why are you check callling? Is not check folding or check shoving (depending on how big portion of the range that consists of value vs semiluffs) a better option? This because the small stacks that are being left after his bet plus the fact that he never bluffs on river according to you?

You said yourselfe that his betsizing on flop did not look like a bluff. Why are you then calling on turn again when you do not have the odds to draw even when he bets small? I mean, when he bets again you get even more info that you are beat.

I have hard time believing that highstakes players are so unbalanced on river as your assumtion.

Thank´s!

### Jan. 3, 2014 | 1:07 p.m.

Also, Jennings writes this about riverplay:

" If he needs to be right 33% of the time I'd think I should have 2 bluff combos for every value combo. I failed high school geometry twice and algebra 2 once so I historically am awful at math.  I've been basing my game off this assumption though so if this is wrong please explain why."

My assumtion of this comment was that he is "basing his game off this assumtion", but apparently it does not mean that. Maybe someone could help me understand what he means?

### Dec. 28, 2013 | 8:30 a.m.

Please help me understand the method being used by Jennings and as it seem many of you other players!

If a guy can not create even close to the optimal river betting range in front of the computer how can he do it "on the go" when mulitibabling? This is an honest question and I would appreciate if someone could explain to me because Jennings who apparently is one of those players do not want to tell me.

### Dec. 28, 2013 | 7:51 a.m.

You have missed the point totally! No one says that Peter is never aiming for to exploit leaks when he can. We are discussing his flaws when it comes to building ranges when aiming for being balanced.

### Dec. 27, 2013 | 1:25 p.m.

If you "made a mistake in writing", you must have made a few of them. When reading you posts it is obvious that you did not correct the "one mistake". You even admitted to this being your standard line when not exploiting. You wrote this among others:

"Just because I said I generally base my strategy around trying to have roughly 2 bluffs for 1 value bet doesn't mean that's the strategy I always use.  There are spots I feel my opponents over-fold and spots I feel they over-call and I will often choose to give up or bet based on those spots."

Does this explination seem to come from a guy who is trying to explain that he really does not play with those ratios and that it was just a typo?

### Dec. 27, 2013 | 6:41 a.m.

danielmerrilees....please read all Peter´s posts above, he admitts to have been using this ratio river and expexts a boost in his winrate in the future after fixing this leak.

### Dec. 27, 2013 | 6:32 a.m.

Adam....How do you know that he his a current crusher in those games?

### Dec. 26, 2013 | 8:57 p.m.

It is impossible to be the biggest winner at highstakes NL with leaks like that. Period!

You say that you are NL 1000 player but you do not understand how much money he loses every river playing with those ratios? Man, I must be in the twilight zone, people are crushing highstakes everywhere without understanding simple very costly when doing wrong concepts. lol

### Dec. 26, 2013 | 6:08 p.m.

Yea, so that is why I asked him HOW he construct the betting and calling ranges for him and his opponents on the river. It is a BIG diference between the ratio he recommended and the ratio he has been playing according to if he have not had this big leak. By mistake recommending a range constisting of 4 TIMES more bluffs than optimal just because you are bad at math?

He wrote it himself that he now after getting corrected believes that his winrate will get a boost in the future. He also wrote that he is generally basing his play according to this wrong ratio value/bluffs

### Dec. 26, 2013 | 2:06 p.m.

Thank´s!, but no, that is not what i meant. I am asking Peter how he correctly can find leaks in OP:s river ranges when he has been under the assumtion that it is optimal to have 4 times more bluffcombos in a river betting range than it in reality is.

Or how can avoid being exploited as the riverbettor when betting river with that frequeenzy.

### Dec. 26, 2013 | 1:14 p.m.

It is up too you if you want to show me results or not. You have decided not to and I accept it. End of that discussion.

I am not arguing with you now. Please just help me explain how you can create correct ranges on river for you and your OP when having had this flaw? You said to me that I had missed stuff and I probably have, therefore I am asking you what I have missed?

You write that when you "feel" that your OP has expoitable leaks on river you adjust. The thing I can not understand is HOW you have been able to draw the correct conclusions and adjust correctly after you seen a SD or similar?

Please just explain this to me and I will have no more questions.

### Dec. 26, 2013 | 12:48 p.m.

I can also not understand why not more members find this to be a big issue. It would be nice if some Elite coaches could help me understand what I am missing here?

### Dec. 26, 2013 | 11:36 a.m.

Well, I asked for some proof that you are the big winner that you are. It is up to you if you want to show anything and if so, what you show.

I do not understand why you are being so defencive and feels so offended by this? The thing is that the leak you have shown to have is probably much bigger of an issue than what you seem to understand. Because had you done so you would not get so offended when people react strongly.

"Just because I said I generally base my strategy around trying to have roughly 2 bluffs for 1 value bet doesn't mean that's the strategy I always use.  There are spots I feel my opponents over-fold and spots I feel they over-call and I will often choose to give up or bet based on those spots.  Regardless of my opponent type."

To sum up what you write here is that your standard play have been wrong all the time and the times when you have adjusted your riverplay according to your reads you have adjusted totally wrong.

Also, I have no clue how your "feel" on the river can work out well? Even if you read of OP:s calling/betting/raising frequenzees are spot on you apparently must have been adjusting wrong. Not only when betting yourself but when calling too.

That is why this flaw in your game is much bigger than just a "small mathmistake". All the riverranges gets fucked up when having this flaw and I am shocked that not more members or Elite coachers at this site has reacted.

If there is like a system or something you have used to create your riverranges please try to explain to me how it works, because as I have no clue of what is going on.

Also, you had a patronising tone against me saying that I did not understand solid fundaments in poker because I thought it would be very difficult to find leaks in opponents without knowing the math of poker. Maybe I am stupid, but can you please explain to me how you correctly can find leaks in opponent´s river ranges when you have had the approach you so have had so far? It does not matter if you think about OP:s range as in amount of combos or if you only look at a hand he has SD and drawn your condlusions from that. Your adjustments can never be correct when you have wrong idea of what.

Thanks´s!

P.s Since you have a logical thinking on "expert level" as you described it. Can you not understand that I find it weird that you did not manage to think like this:

"If I bet pot on river, OP is risking 1 pot to win 2 pots. This means that OP kneeds to be correct one time out of three to call with his bluffcatchers. I therefore must have 2 valuecombos for every bluffcombo in my bettingrange."

This is math on a child´s level.

It does not matter if you are good or bad at math. If you are on an expertlevel at logical thinking you probably should be able to figure this out yourself without having to contact a coach to ask, right? Not even when other members mentioned it to you the coin fell down. That is not what you can expect from the biggest winner at nl 10/20. And surely not from an Elite coach at RIO.

### Dec. 26, 2013 | 11:29 a.m.

Hi Peter!

I am sorry, I am not very good at English and I probably failed at explaining my point int the first post.

You say that you did not understand my questions about exploitation play and GTO play. I will therefore make another effort to explain now:

My point was that if you do not know some of the fundamentals  in poker (like knowing how many bluffs to add for every valuehand) it should be very difficult to have a good understanding about when opponents ranges or your own ranges are balanced or not. Obviously you very often must have thought your opponents ranges have been balanced on river for instance, when their ranges in fact  have been extreamily bluffheavy. You therefore have been missed out alot of EV by not calling big riverbets with your bluffcatchers. This was just one example, but I hope you understand now? This is not "just a small mathmistake" this is a huge  leak and something you should not expect from the biggist nl 10/20 winner.

I hope that you therefore can understand, that I find it very weird that you have been able to be the "biggest winner at nl 10/20" as you argue? I truly believe that you never ever would be so stupid that you would lie about something like that and I therefore believe that you really are what you say. I do however also find it to be completely fair that you would share your last two years results with us just to make sure.

Thank´s!

### Dec. 26, 2013 | 8:30 a.m.

Hi Peter!

You say in the video that your approach to poker is to "play the best possible poker" and therefore " you don´t have to care so much about the skilllevel of you opponents. This sounds like your style is to play as close to GTO as possible to me. To do that well without knowing basic pokermath is impossible though.

And if you are a "feel-player" that am very good at exploiting your opponents, how on earth can you be good at finding unbalanced plays in (highstakes) opponents ranges if you do not have a good understanding about this stuff?

Even after members here explained to you how the math works, you failed at understanding at first. You say that you even had to ask your coach. I am sorry, but this is very remarkable to me.

What are your results for the last two years? Are they public?

Thank´s!

### Dec. 25, 2013 | 10:36 p.m.

He can just sign up on a site where he does not usally play with a new nick. He can also focus on doing only theory or concept videos.

### Dec. 23, 2013 | 2:34 p.m.

Yes! Sounds like a good idea. Spread the word guys!

### Dec. 23, 2013 | 7:26 a.m.

Post | Mr Thomas posted in Chatter: RIO member Game Theory

Hi!

I would really love it, if the member "Game Theory" would produce some videos for RIO. How many of you agree? Maybe if enough member ask for this, we can make it happen?

Mr Galfond, please make it happen!