Episode 212: Matt Bodnar

Matt Bodnar is an investor, the host of The Science of Success podcast, and an avid poker player. We talk to him about his experiences in poker inform his work in investing and vice versa, and how what he’s learned from “The Science of Success” can help poker players.

In our strategy segment, we discuss bluffing at the micro-stakes.


0:30 – Hello & Welcome
9:58 – Strategy
37:40 – Interview: Matt Bodnar

Recommended Reading

Mindset: The New Science of Success by Carol S. Dweck
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig
Getting Things Done by David Allen
The Wisdom of Insecurity by Alan Watts
Cosmos by Carl Sagan


$0.01/$0.02 NLHE on PokerStars

MP ($2.75) opens to $0.04, Hero calls in CO with 9s 8s, Button ($6.21) raises to $0.14, MP folds, Hero calls.

Flop ($0.35) 6s Qd 3h. Check check.

Turn ($0.35) 6h. Hero bets $0.20, Villain calls.

River ($0.75) 4s. Hero checks, Villain bets $0.50, Hero raises to $1.22.

10 thoughts on “Episode 212: Matt Bodnar

  1. I think the reason your strategy correspondent is talking about how much people are 3-betting is not for whether he should 3-bet or call, he’s deciding between flatting or folding and thinks the call is ok because he sees a flop almost every time when people rarely 3-bet.

    I really like Andrew’s thing of how when you play poker better than other people then your moves won’t make sense to them and it will be indistinguishable from bad play. This of course is different from chess where you find out by the end of the game whether the other player’s novel move was brilliant or terrible.

    He’s been saying it for more than “recently” though. I know, because it can be applied in a lot of other areas too. For example politics is a lot more like poker than chess in this respect, and I remember mentioning Andrew’s idea last summer in the context that the UK’s decision to leave the EU, which is seen as incomprehensible by other countries, would be a sign of the UK having either a more effectively functioning political/debate culture than that of continental Europe, or a the sign of more dysfunctional political/debate culture. I’m not going to derail the comments by saying which of those I think it is, but it’s an interesting idea of much wider applicability than just poker. I think very often that choosing “the road less travelled” in life is a sign of either brilliant or terrible decision making.

    • @Richard: I don’t have a lot to say in response to this, but I do have the sense I don’t reply to your comments very often, but they’re really quite good. Thanks for taking the time!

  2. I know this may be nit-picky, but Andrew said that “if your opponents thought the way you’re playing was the correct way to play, they’d be doing that” in regard to not being embarrassed about making bold plays that can blow up in your face. I could be blessed with really good games, but I play small stakes everyday with people who play way too loose, not because they think it’s correct, but because they just want to gamble or lack the discipline to play tighter

Comments are closed.