Toward Your Own Poker Strategy

One of the most confusing concepts the aspiring poker player will encounter is the notion of an overall Strategy. Perhaps surprisingly, it is counter-intuitive to many that a relational game of information can have a strategy that is not merely reactionary and essentially reciprocal. For instance, even very smart people balk at the concept, as evidenced in this thread, where a poster posits there can only be one strategy for poker – a position which is at least novel, plays to the fears of many, and useful for our discussion, however wrong it is.

Nevertheless, even though this poster is stuck on the much abused term of GTO, he’s not really proposing anything vastly different from what your garden variety equity pusher, or all those who have looked at some hot and cold values for the cards they are dealt, or even those who wander into complex EV equations, do.

After all, we are all dealing with the same tangibles, and no matter how complex they become or ingenious we are in dealing with them, we cannot escape certain limitations of an unlimited game.

The question, then, is about a kind of nuance, because in this respect, the poster is right – we all have the same goal.

So how can our philosophies really be different?

We’ll get to that. First we have to clear the underbrush.

For instance, our work to understand the concept of Strategy is complicated by the fact that many concepts and words overlap. For example, we may have a strategy for a certain situation, and that is reasonable to say, because plotting that situation will involve more than just a sum of tactics. Consider those moments when a poker instructor starts talking about “the strategy here…”

Further, we will often execute or see tactics that are so strong they may seem like Strategy, such as an opponent with an overbetting frequency who is not adjusting to our revised calling range. His abuse of one tactic is not a long term, workable, revisable plan.

In fact, it is dauntingly accurate to say everyone has a strategy of some sort, but that because it is often completely incoherent, it is not worth the name.

Most critically, poker is a relational game. This means that whatever we are doing it simply can’t be in a pure vacuum outside of the most heady, overwhelmingly calculated situations, such as in the Solver’s computations, at work in the current Libratus Vs. Brains Challenge, or conversely, in the most simple toy games, where we find anti-auto profit frequencies that provide shape to our thinking. The vast, real, breathing world of poker relies on memes and concepts that create a climate of a shifting baseline strategy, a kind of zeitgeist that we either flail against, embrace, or conquer. Most of poker play takes place in a trackless cloud of diminishing and flourishing tactics that no hole card camera or HUD can ever quite permanently capture for our most careful observation.

Yikes. Confusing, hard to deal with, and no wonder everyone just gives up or starts screaming GTO! GTO! (And hoping some program will solve their problems, or as many do, begin to think you need to take some sort of “side” in the poker community.)

It is also worth noting that Strategy as an overriding concept is not often discussed or essentially assumed. For instance, if I look at even some of the most important (and unburnable) poker books out there, such as The Theory of Poker, Professional No Limit Hold’em, Vol. I, and Applications of NLHE, we find scant discussion of creating an underlying strategy beyond the reciprocal goal of capturing maximum expected value. We do get an ingenious amount of engineering toward this feat, as if the contractors killed and buried the annoying architect and got busy on their own.

Poker, in other words, is a game full of technical actions and technical reactions – but outside of the somewhat secretive high stakes and more accessible yet still obtuse game theory, it’s not a culture particularly full of high concept strategy.

Strange, with so much community money on the line.

There are at least two reasons for this state of affairs. One, adjustments to one’s technical game are usually enough to produce noticeable returns for the vast majority of players. Two, as in the case of Applications, these technical aspects support a theorized perfect strategy, one which in concept trumps all to the point where there is no answer. While highly informative and worth pursuing, this theorized strategy cannot be replicated to extreme precision at the tables beyond a few situations.

This last point is key to us, however, as it suggests there is room for attacking any and all games and styles for the foreseeable future.

Let’s continue with terms, though. Merriam Webster defines strategy as “a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim.” This is excellent for our purpose, but we can go a little deeper and find if it is helpful.

From Wikipedia, “A strategy describes how the ends (goals) will be achieved by the means (resources).”

And further, it is enlightening to consider:

Henry Mintzberg from McGill University defined strategy as “a pattern in a stream of decisions” to contrast with a view of strategy as planning,[4] while Max McKeown (2011) argues that “strategy is about shaping the future” and is the human attempt to get to “desirable ends with available means”. Dr. Vladimir Kvint defines strategy as “a system of finding, formulating, and developing a doctrine that will ensure long-term success if followed faithfully.”[5]

The rubric is becoming clear: we are concerned with an End. The objection most poker players have to this line of thinking is, “But I know my goal! Ima try a make MONEY.”

The problem is this:

That’s everyone’s hope.

In other words, this basic and common thought is completely reciprocal and isn’t going to lead to much of a plan.

The natural strategy of equity pushing is limited by its universality.

So, as the obvious adjustment, they take the next step: Excellence in Equity Pushing.

I maximize good hands and few semibluffs. We push toward high expected value. We take a pot here, and surrender one here, and hope at the end, we’ve guessed well enough to be ahead. This is the plan of all low and midstakes stakes instructional courses and microstakes online manuals, and in fact permeates deep into the thought of the some very hard online games as well, where players are obsessed with small nuances of their graphs and bbs/position, fearful of any leak like the proverbial miser quintuple counting his stacks of gold.

Now, this reciprocal wish-fulfillment is obviously a form of strategy, as I described above. You can take it far. In introducing the idea of “crispness,” high stakes pro and instructor Matt Berkey, in various recorded conversations, elucidates this simple plan of most players and the basic tenet of most poker education sites: should you make ever more perfect decisions, i.e. “crisp” decisions, it is possible that your reciprocal spots will lower themselves to a more and more profitable unequal exchange where you take more than villain and give him less. (Should sound familiar to the GTO screamers and those they admire, who are smart enough to sweat very fine points and carve out edges with them.)

That’s worth pursuing. The atmosphere, speed, and low information bounds of online play most encourage this “crispness.” It’s what many branches of poker thought converge upon – even strategies that do more than push equity.

However, the mistake in being completely given to the idea of ever more precise equity pushing is twofold. 1) It is obvious that it suffers from a high amount of reciprocity, and 2) that there are alternatives in fighting this war.

For instance, what if I decided to think beyond receiving equity in the same way my opponents do? What if I want, in other words, to counter the current community strategy?

This is where one’s own plans begin to form. I can suddenly envision an End.

In this scenario, we are fighting for winning more and more pots that don’t belong to us and less concerned with seeing showdowns, even if they would be in our favor. This is part of the ultimately exploitative strategy I practice and teach where I begin by correlating holdings to stacks as optimally as possible – my own “crispness” – and then end up with too many bluffs and overbets.

Or what if our goal is to undo our opponent’s game with confusing aggression and induce massive errors?

Now our aim is to see those showdowns but against a range our opponents didn’t intend to bring to the table.

This is where error-inducing tactics such as extremely heavy-handed isolation and using the illusion of range advantage come into play. We can fight both sophisticated game theory influenced strategies, the TAG Poker Education Industry, and basic nitty equity pushers by upending the table of their premises. Your hands will do x so I will do y. Wait what?

We are now fighting against the current meme of strategy and composing our own, as opposed to refining the mutual, contemporaneous one.

However, all your work is still ahead of you, should you focus on a goal like this. You need the Means to your End. This requires tactics, adjustments, and intentionality that work with the fundamental nature of the game, not just your opponent’s strategy.

Why is this hard to do? Why don’t I instantly have a Means if I have End in mind?

The reason is, most players have skipped something: a profound understanding of their game.

The reasons why everything happens.

Why is there money in the pot? What is going on? What is a bet, essentially?

The truth is, most players can’t even answer this simple question:

What is a raise? Or better, What is the purpose of a raise?

How do we create a thorough raising range without this understanding?

You can’t have a coherent strategy unless you have the answer to these questions.  You are still dealing with the same limitations everyone is. You’ll never find your Means when you skip this step.

In other words, you can’t build the car unless you know how the vehicle functions. And the road, for that matter.

So that’s a head scratcher for most, and here’s what they end up doing instead: They go to the junk yard or the dealer and buys something that seems to be working.

They drive it right out of the yard, throwing smoke, or right off the dealer’s lot, gleaming.

But when it doesn’t work, some find a new one. The cleverer tinker with it. The well off pay to have someone “tweak” something.

Or maybe they go to their favorite Car Driving site and look for “Five Tips on Driving Faster,” “Acceleration from the Blinds.” “Three Betting Around Corners.”


It’s everywhere… and it’s fine. Tweak away at your technical game. However, you’ll still be confounded as to how to create a new car, because you’ll never understood what comprised any of the choices they made for you.

Consider a classic poker example: All the people who are confused as to when their cbets don’t work.

They think cbetting is just a fixed fact of poker… a gas pedal you step on. Gogogo, as they say, glglgl. They think every board favors them and launch ace high into four opponents.

They can’t make it work. Even more telling, now take away all their cbets. Forbid them.

They’re completely lost. 

It’s because they suddenly have to come to grips with the fact that their strategy is premised on a tactic.

You see, there are no fixed strategical elements to a long-term winning plan, just elements that are either coherent or non-coherent. They either reflect the basic facts of poker… or they don’t.

Let’s take another example nearly as troublesome as the continuation bet conundrum: the three bet. For the equity pushers, a polarized range skews to value and is balanced by axs blocker hands provides reasonable cover for a raise.

However, none of this has anything to do with anything. The stacks either allow isolation and possibly continuance versus a fourbet, or they don’t. This will dictate what you can do with jacks, it will explain if you can barrel kqs or if you alternatively can burn up kqo on a three bet fold. The idea of raise folding kqs or jacks should be anathema to anyone trying to coordinate their equity with position and depth- just as much as the idea of ending up taking A5 to the felt because it is too weak to call.

Now, I’m not going to just hand out my own strategy. A big part of it is explained in my coaching document. Much of it reflects the essential nature of NL, and that is what makes it work, for all its flaws.

Speaking of flaws, is my strategy the best strategy? The truth is… probably not!

Actually it really can’t be.

Crazy, huh? Why would I badmouth my own strategy or even admit its weakness?

For instance, it is not as robust as Christian Soto’s, the Red Chip/S4Y crossover.

Nevermind his mentor Berkey’s.

But here’s the thing: a modest strategy is far better than none at all.

The painful truth for the average grinder is, if you are just pushing equity and trying a million different tactics… at heart, you are likely just clicking buttons.

It’s brutal. Yep, all those books, all those videos, all those forum arguments… and still you are there, punching yourself in the face and wondering why your nose is always opened.

You’re exploiting yourself and you don’t even know it… which is amusing.

(Maybe not to you.)

You don’t have much of a plan, and even more damning, most of what you do have is someone else’s.

And that, at root, is why you flounder in poker and grind the minors, year after year.

It’s also why you worry so much about mental game, because you think poker is an endless repetition of beats and exhaustive self-discipline, and that “fish” – people who don’t play like you and enjoy the favors of the goddess Variance– are holding you back.

Or as one of my favorite saying goes, a phrase that recalls a now fond period of my life, in the land of the blind, one-eye is king.

So, to conclude: yes, maybe we’re all down in the mines, as Mr. Berkey says.

(A tad arrogant, perhaps, this guy.)

Well, arrogance must be earned, as Dr. House once said. Unfortunately, it’s theirs to enjoy: we really are blinded and trapped when we play without a philosophy of the game and knowledge of why everything happens. The mechanics of our pick axes alone will find neither gold nor sunlight.

So, to my fellow miners who are looking to escape the darkness of mediocrity: study the game and the current tactics that comprise the set of its most common strategies. Find an overall goal that counters these strategies and accomplishes what you want at the table. Then, and only then, engineer your technical game, using all the actions that are at your fingertips as an experienced player.

This will take you toward a new, far more coherent, more individual, effective, and most of all, sunnier, strategy.



  1. Do you avoid showdowns to 1.) hide your range as much as possible, and 2.) allow yourself to bet more on turns and rivers with both bluff and showdown-happy hands?

    ^^^ These questions, or rather guesses, seem off. They don’t fit the idea of understanding the current tactics of the common strategies and countering those strategies.

    Let me try another way:

    I have to start by asking myself, how does your tactic of avoiding showdowns frustrate the tactics of common strategies? Hmm… well players like to see everything. That’s a tendency, but I suppose it flows from a strategy of curiosity and not being here to fold. If their strategy is to not usually fold, and you make them fold more than they would like, by using large bet sizes, then they will eventually (or quickly) become immune to large bet sizes and move back toward their strategy of seeing lots of showdowns, but at a higher price, making mistakes of stack size and odds often greater. When the immunity builds up then you show up with a stronger range against one they would not normally bring for such a price.

    But what’s your overall goal? Is it to drag people out of their comfort areas? Into an area you know better than them and can thereby take advantage?

    This post needs a thread on RCP, along with 120 replies of discussion.

  2. Hey Persuadeo,

    I just came across your blog. You write well and have some great insights. In depth post and a non obvious take on poker strategy. Well done.

    I just started a ‘Best of Poker’ series on my blog which aims to feature the best poker content on the web on a monthly basis. I think some of the articles you wrote would make for great pieces. It will help you because your posts will be seen by all of my readers, plus the link backs are great for your site as well.

    Feel free to submit any of your posts (old or archived posts are fine) on my blog here:

    Each month the most popular ones will be selected as winners, and I’ll include some of my personal favorites as well. My goal is to showcase the best poker content on a monthly basis and help raise the bar for what the influencers produce.

    Thanks for your time, and good luck bro.
    Alec Torelli

  3. From my limited perspective of low-stakes live games, an effective (or even semi-effective) equity pushing strategy would be profitable in them, simply due to the basic errors many players commit at these levels. You allude to that in “adjustments to one’s technical game are usually enough to produce noticeable returns for the vast majority of players”. But, at times I will face players who – like yourself – “think beyond receiving equity in the same way my their opponents do and counter the current community strategy”. With them, I am often lost.

    For example, if I am close to to the top of my range but far from the nuts, I will tend to over-fold when facing a large bet (or re-raise) with deep stacks behind. Why? Because most 1/3 and 2/5 players don’t bluff enough. That of course, makes me exploitable if you over-bluff me or even just bluff optimally. Which brings me back to (paraphrase) Mr. Soto’s remark in the Redchip thread, that adjustments are everything.

    So, where to from here? I’d be interested in hearing more about your “coaching document”. I want to raise my play level and suspect you can supply some keys, or help me devise my own.

  4. It is effective, but the problem is, among many things, that it limits one’s development as a player because you are essentially representing a game that is not there as your strategy. Or to put it another way, the mystery of the game is what you rely on and not your own strategy, really.

    Or to restate again, the low level equity pusher is really just exploiting the misconceptions of those who will eventually learn. This is why so many poker players peak in their progress and level very early, as the they are playing against a pool. As soon as you hit a threshold of competent players, reciprocity of game style leaves them with no where to go.

    I have a page about coaching on the site, and a prospectus I send out to interested players.

  5. But don’t you think that players need to have this “foundation” first? Since everyone is dealt the same cards (long term), as you move up everyone realizes “I shouldn’t be playing this hand” ect and so advantage of simply having better cards entering hands vs. you opponents diminishes, as chips just move around no-nonchalantly and no one ever comes out ahead. At this point, in order to continue to beat them, you have to have more advanced skill-sets (bluff frequency, hand reading, live tells). But the foundation of “equity pushing” has to be very solid before you focus on those other things, yes? It’s like someone in basketball being like “man they have a variety of moves they use, they got a post-up game, mid range, cross over and step back. It’s so hard to defend because I never know whats coming! I’m left guessing!”.

    But if you can’t dribble, shoot decently well, ect, those “moves” are worthless. You don’t start a basketball player with “alright we are gonna work on your double cross to step back” if they can’t dribble. Fundamentals must be down rock solid before more advanced “moves” or concepts are worked into your game?

    Also, if your strategy is “my profit comes from non-show down winnings”, in some games isn’t this a bad “strategy?” (I guess this just goes back to exploitative vs GTO). Doesn’t strategy always change at the table or vs a player? Or is that, in itself a strategy (poker strategy inception sickkkkk).

    1. Sure, look at the bottom of my piece and it will be rather clearly stated that we are talking about players who have a technical game – some dribbling and shooting skills – who are most ripe for a strategy. Part of my argument, remember, is that players mistake their 3 point percentage for the plan to win a basketball game.

  6. Ha I love you man, your writing style and low tolerance people’s ineptitude or indolent attention to detail (me) make reading your blog and your posts on RPC oh so fun. I envision you to be something like the villain from No Country for Old Men, deliberate, efficient, and placing a high emphasis on the value of the spoken word, waste not time or energy with small talk. I can almost imagine you in a mundane conversation in which either the person your talking to is wrong or boring, quietly blinking with a slight upturned lip saying little no nothing but screaming on the inside.

    Anyways, a personal question I have for you is what do you say when people ask you for a living? What are their reactions when you say “I play and cover poker for a living”. Fascination? Instant judgement of some degenerate gambler who stays up all night, sleeps all day, and lives a wild lifestyle of ups and downs? Do you have pride in it? Let me state that this is not meant to be insulting. For a long time I was a personal trainer. I loved my work. I loved helping people. I believed in what I did. When I was younger, I used to say it loud and proud. Girls loved it, guys were like “oh awesome I hate my desk job”. As I got older, slowly but surely I didn’t like saying it anymore. By the time I turned 25 in D.C., a city driven by success and status, people often just label you as the stereotypical “gym trainer” (Brad Pitt in burn after reading), good looking, but dull with no meaningful future ahead of you. The dice had been cast as soon as those words left your mouth, and I hated saying it and the “oh, that’s cool” followed by the look on women’s face of “oh he’s good looking and fit, if only he had said consultant or worked on The Hill”. Many assumed my potential and intelligence were capped, and that irked me. If it bothered me then, what about if I was saying the same thing in 5 years? 10 years? It’s what partially drove me to return to grad school. My friend who plays professionally no longer tells people when he meets them out at bars parties whatever that he plays poker. Instead he does “short-term risk assessment” (ha clever). What’s your experience not just for yourself, but also for the pro players you know. Do you feel people box you in as soon as you reveal your profession?

  7. As for your other question I will address it another piece I have planned, which is about the stuff they don’t tell you when you think about playing poker for a living.

    1. I grew up fascinated by it and also wanted to trigger people with this map of the German invasion. I think looking back, I should have edited the GTORB overlay so that only some nodes were there, not sure what I was thinking.

      1. Nice. Personally, I’ve recently developed an interest in the Eastern Front, specifically Operation Barbarossa. However, I am interested in the whole conflict and that map of Stalingrad had Vasily Chuikov’s name on it. He is and a character and has an interesting story. Cheers.

  8. I see. I have an interest in the Eastern Front (currently obsessed with learning everything I can about Operation Barbarossa), and recognized the map was Stalingrad. I saw Chuikov’s name on it and it reminded me of what an interesting character he was, and his story. Cheers.

Leave a Reply

The OOP Lexicon is a user-developed poker glossary.

Absolute Position
Being last to act (e.g. closest to the button) postflop.

Advancing Leverage
Aggressive actions intended to shift the leverage point closer to the current street.

A bluff or value hand which is a natural candidate for balancing another hand because of their shared qualities, such as AA and AK; usually helps planning range splitting and line construction.

Auto profit threshold (APT)
A bluff made with positive expectation resulting from the opponent under defending vis-a-vis bet sizing. The inverse of MDF.

Choosing to support either value bets or bluffs with their converse.

A bet is a proposition.  It’s the first offer on the pot with regard to the outcome of the game. Each player, in turn, has the opportunity to lay or change the price on the pot to the rest of the players. “The language of poker.” The bet, as opposed to the raise, is most often and most easily allied to the merged pricing construction.

To remove combinations of hands from a range based on cards in your hand or on the board.

Cards which influence our combinatorial assumptions. Ex: We face resistance on T76ss while we hold As7d. Both our cards act as blockers. Our ace of spades blocks (limits) a number of flush draws our opponent could hold, while our seven blocks a number of two pair and sets our opponent could hold. *See also Block and Unblock

Blocker Bet
A small bet made by an out-of-position player.

Board Texture
The available community cards and the set of conditions which inform its relationship to a logical range.

The worst hands in a betting range.  Depending on context this could be the worst hand in a value bet range or the bluffing section of polarized range.

A range descriptor indicating a range shape with a specific high or low boundary.  A range bounded high won't contain some number of the best linear hands ranked from the top down.  This is equivalent to a "capped" range.  A range bounded low won't contain some number of the worst linear hands ranked from the bottom up.  This is often useful to describe a range that doesn't include any air or very weak hands.

A strategic mode in which a player is attempting to deny their opponent(s) equity share of the pot through aggression. Often referred to as “denying equity” or “buying up equity”.

A range is capped when it represents little to no nutted combinations as confirmed by prior action.

A continuation bet. A bet made by the player with initiative as a continuation of their initiative on a prior street.

The ability to accurately range an opponent based on all available information at a decision point.  An understanding of your hands exact equity.

Closing Action
Acting last where no subsequent action is possible behind you.  For example calling a UTG raise in the BB or calling in position postflop with no players behind.

Cold Call/Cold Bet
An action is considered “cold” when it comes from a player entering into the pot has not previously put chips voluntarily in the pot. Ex: the UTG opens, the BTN 3bets. If the SB were to call or raise, it would be a cold-call or a cold-4bet.

The branch of mathematics the deals with finite number sets. Used in poker in determining the amount of combinations of certain hands in a range.

When a blind that is not the biggest blind calls the amount of the biggest blind. Ex: At $2/$5, action folds around to the SB and the SB completes. Meaning they just call. The BB can complete when there is a straddle.

A capped range that contains only middling value hands. A range without the polarized portion.

Logical advancement of combinations across streets.

Dark Side of the Deck
The large swath of hands, often off-suit, that fall outside of conventional playable recommendations. Counter-equity hands.

Dead Money
Money in the pot that is not being fought for.  A passive player creates dead money when they call a bet preflop and looking to play fit-or-fold postflop. Dead Money is often confused with the money in the pot.

Delayed Cbet
A cbet made on the turn by the preflop raiser when the flop checked through.

Delaying Leverage
Passive actions intended to maintain a likely late street leverage point, or possibly to avoid a leverage point entirely.

A strategic break from one’s standard construction as an exploit of a particular player’s profile or construction.

Diminishing Medium Value Category
A Seidman concept in which when one’s middling value hand range is too small and transparent to our opponent and thus either that range should be shifted into the top of a polarized range or the nutted portion should be shifted into the medium value range. Ex: AQo or TT being 3bet preflop.

A cbet that is less than the preflop raise. Ex: BTN opens to $25, we 3bet to $90 from the SB, BTN calls. On the flop we cbet $70.

Dry Board
A board texture that yields relatively few logical hands value. Often containing one medium or high card and disconnected low cards. Ex: Q53r, T622r.

Dual Mentalities
A Seidman concept in which when we decide to go postflop with a weak hand against a nutted range, we should either be looking to out flop it or steal the pot away. We base our decision against the player type we are up against and never go post with both mentalities at once.

Dynamic Board
A flop texture in which the runout is very likely to change the order of top ranking hands. Ex: 954tt, 742r.

Effective Stack
The smallest stack to VPIP in a given hand. Their stack decides the amount of money that can be played for or threatened before an all-in.

Effective nuts
A value hand that can be played for stacks as if it were the actual nuts.  This is a relative hand ranking based on range assumptions and opponent type.

A measure of how well the equity of a hand is deployed. Efficiency can also be used as a measure of what is risked vs what is gained for a given bet size.

Either/Or Philosophy
A Seidman concept in which a particular street can be a very good spot for value, meaning our opponent is never folding, or a very good spot to bluff, meaning our opponent is never calling, but that those spots cannot be concurrent.

Borrowed from economics, a measure of the sensitivity of a range or hand relative to the price offered.  Ranges (or hands) described as elastic will narrow, sometimes quickly, in response to increases in price.  Those described as inelastic will not.

The percent pot share of a holding or range on any given street if the hand were to go to showdown with no further betting action.

Equity Pusher
A analytic approach to the game in which a player views the correct actions only through the lens of their hands equity vs. their opponent’s range. Often this player type has a lack of understanding of overall strategy and plays their range face up with few bluffs.

Expected Value
The mathematical formula for how much a player’s action is expected to make with their hand vs. their opponent’s range. EV = ($towin * %ofwin) - ($tolose * %ofloss)

Face Up
A player is playing their range “face up” when their actions directly correspond with their desired outcome. Ex: A player bets half-pot three streets with a range that has no bluffs. A player 3bets to 7x with JJ.

False Polarization
Otherwise known as Faux-Po; a polarizing action taken with a merged range.

The result of losing your entire table stakes. All the way down to the felt.

A call of a cbet with a weak holding with the likely intention of taking the pot away when the opponent shuts down. Often done by an in position preflop caller.

The convergence of positions, stack depths, and preceding actions at a given decision point.

A mathematical formula developed by Phil Galfond for calculating the expected value of one’s range construction vs. an opponent’s holding.

A computer programming term that means "garbage in, garbage out" which also applies to poker forums when a poster seeks an in-depth conversation about a hand, but fail to provide pertinent information such as stack sizes, bets sizes, table dynamics and player tendencies.

Game Theory
The applied science of combining mathematical models with logic to craft winning poker strategies.

Game Theory Optimal
A set of strategies is GTO if no player can unilaterally deviate and increase his average profit. ~ Will Tipton.  GTO does not mean best possible response, highest EV, or maximally exploitative play.

Implied Odds
Additional value likely to be accrued if you make your hand on a later street.

Sometimes referred to as the betting lead, a common situation in which the passive player yields to the aggressive player postflop, or the last aggressor continues betting on subsequent streets.

A bet or raise intended to force out the rest of the field in order to play heads up against a weaker opponent who has entered the pot through limping, raising, or posting the blinds.

Loose aggressive player type. Generally overused and inaccurate.

A bet made from out of position after a passive action. Often referred to as a donk bet on the flop.

He knows that I know that he knows I know.

A bet or raise that signals the hand will be played for stacks.  Within reason, it is accomplished by betting with a sizing that will create RSP equal to 1 on the following street.

Limp First In

A consecutive range of hands decreasing in strength from top to bottom; generally meaning value hands. Equivalent to "merged."

Lockdown Board
A board on which the nuts have often already been made.  More prevalent in PLO but sometimes useful in no-limit, for example on monotone flops and boards with available common straights e.g. JT9, T98, 987, etc.

1) A range of hands that includes both strong and medium value; 2) in reference to medium value; 3) the merged construction describes the natural representation of a wide range through a bet.

Mini Stop-N-Go
A Seidman concept, a line taken by a OOP PFR where flop is check/called and turn is lead.

Minimum Defense Frequency (MDF)
The necessary defending (calling/raising) frequency to prevent an opponent from auto-profiting.  The inverse of APT.

Natural Action
A check, bet, or raise which is exactly suited to a player's range and situation (e.g. a pfr's continuation bet on AK2r).

A player who will not put chips into the pot without a very strong and sometimes only nutted hand.

The best possible hand.

Nuts-To-Air Ratio (NAR)
In a polarized betting line, the ratio of value to bluff.  As used by Seidman, not limited to polarization but sometimes used to label general opponent tendency of value to bluff.

Old Man Coffee. Typically an older, retired player that likes to play bingo with ATC, but will only continue with the nuts.

The first voluntary action. The first action or bet to voluntarily enter the pot.

A bet that is more than the size of the pot.

Perceived Range
Refers to the range of hands that your opponent thinks you could have in a certain playing situation. This can be interpreted and thus misinterpreted from your playing style and position at the table.

A range consisting of very strong and very weak hands.

Post Oak Bluff
A small bluff on a late street that has little chance of winning the pot.  Generally interpreted as “gutless” in the past but now fulfilling certain functions as betting efficiencies are understood.

Positional Protection
When the strength of a range is perceived to be capped or uncapped based on which position an action is taken from.

When an action or player is perceived to have strong hands in its range.

Protection Bet
A wager which denies equity to hands which will only give action if they significantly improve; "a value bet which does not want a call."

The rejection of the offered price and the laying of a new higher price.  Raises represent a more narrow range of hands and trend towards polarization.

Range Advantage
Implementation or study tool that refers to 1) most basically, equity measurement of one range against another; 2) or also including a combination of further factors including availability of nutted hands, the nuances of the runout, and positional protection.

Range Manipulation
Deliberate line work/bet sizing made to narrow a range or keep a range wide.

Range Switch
A deliberate change in range composition made to thwart a player who is reading our range too accurately in any spot.  Reduces transparency, fights assumptions, and wins the leveling war if implemented correctly.

Ratio of Stack To Pot
RSP. The stack to pot ratio at any point in a hand, generally used post-flop as opposed to Stack to Pot Ratio.

Taking a hand to showdown and realizing its full equity.  Generally used with regard to passive actions.

The mutual exchange of chips resulting from similar play and ideas.  Reciprocity is a common bi-product of group-think.  A true edge by definition cannot be reciprocal.

Relative Position
A player’s position measured against the aggressor's position.  Generally this is used going to the flop.  For example, if UTG raises and several players call behind, calling in the big blind would give you the best relative position.  You will act after seeing how the field responds to a likely continuation from the preflop aggressor.  In the same scenario calling immediately after the preflop aggressor results in the worst relative position.  You will have to act immediately after a continuation without seeing how the remaining players will respond.  Strong relative position confers an information edge.

The ability of hand to maintain equity across streets against a betting range or as part of a betting range.

Reverse Implied Odds (RIO)
Hands that often win small pots or lose large pots suffer from reverse implied odds.

Popularized by Mathew Janda, a descriptor for how well a hand retains equity over streets of play.  Hands described as robust have equity that does not suffer as an opponent's range becomes stronger.  Often these hands are currently both strong and invulnerable, or have the ability to become very strong by the river, relative to the opponent's range.

Fourth and Fifth Street cards following a given flop texture.

Scale of Protection
Poker theorem which states that the more protected or strong an opponent's range is, the higher the degree of denial or retention a counter will require.

Sklansky Bucks
Dollars won (or lost) in expected value regardless of actual hand result.

Any one of many possible poker archetypes found at low stakes games.

A reraise made after a player has raised and one or more players has called in-between.

Static Board
A flop texture in which the runout is unlikely to change the order of top ranking hands. Ex: AK7r, KK4r.

A passive action followed by an aggressive action, out of position.  For example, a call followed by a lead on the next street.

Streets of Value
A crude shorthand measurement for how much betting a hand can tolerate and still be best at showdown more often than not.

Tight aggressive opponent type. Generally overused and misapplied.

TAG's Dilemma
The paradox created by having a top-heavy range played so aggressively that it misuses equity vis-à-vis position and holding.

The Great Range Fantasy
The common idea that we know our opponent’s range and frequencies precisely; most commonly seen in post-hoc analysis to justify microedge decisions.

Thin Value
A bet that is only slightly more likely to be called by worse than by better. Associated with the merged pricing construction and bet-fold lines.

Three Fundamentals
The most fundamental variables for decision making: position, stack size, and community cards.

The best hands in a given range.

Two-Way Bet
A bet that expects calls from worse hands and incorrect folds at the same time, a simultaneous value bet and bluff line.

The psychological effect of feeling like you’re losing because your stack size isn’t as large as it once was during a session, even though it’s more than what you’re in the game for.

(e.g. You bought in for $100, ran it up $450, but now only have $175 in front of you.)

A hand that has no negative card removal effects on the target range.  Bottom set, for example, unblocks top pair top kicker.

A range that is perceived to contain the nuts in any given line.  Capped ranges may become uncapped during transitions for example from preflop to flop, or flop to turn.

A turned nut straight after raising flop with a gutter.

Value Owning
Making value bets with a hand that has less than 50% equity when called.

Voluntarily Put Money In Pot (VPIP)
The frequency at which a player limps, calls, or raises preflop.

Volatile Board
A flop texture where equities will often shift on the turn and river.  See “dynamic”.

An illusory cooler where one player makes a massive mistake equity mistake and loses his stack with a strong but second best hand; also known as a Jam Basket.

Wet Board
A board texture that allows for a lot of logical hands to continue. Often made up of medium rank connected cards. Ex: KT9tt, Tc8c6s-7c-Ac.

“Walk In, Fuck Shit Up, Walk Out” a hashtag used by instagram poker players.

Winning Player
A forum poster who offers reciprocal advice under the guise of questionable positive low stakes results. A weak player or fish, in general.

Young Man Coffee. Is very much an OMC, but younger.  They usually only continue with the nuts, often under the illusion of playing a GTO style.