Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There are lots of numbers involved in math. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
Almost all of them are.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

I have a problem on page 78

<X check, Y check> = (15/45)(0$) + (30/45)(29/44)($300-$100)
= 65.15

It's not 87.9 ???

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For me it seems to spew around with numbers too much, can you give me a quick summary of it`s contents?

[/ QUOTE ]

numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers numbers

at least if you can't see the forest for the trees.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have ordered the book (twice already, since the guys at Amazon are a bunch of donkeys). Numbers alone isn't what I am looking for. I am looking for answers. I hope this book provides answers to non-trivial questions and/or shows methods how to solve problems.

Actually I don't expect this book to be similar to Nesmith Ankeny's phenomenal book on 5 Card Draw, but I would love to see it discuss methods to create something similar.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

252 posts in this thread and still no review. C'mon people, I am desparately waiting on sb to give short review or comment a little more extensively. I can't wait to get my hands on this book but I am in friggin Bulgaria, so who knows when and how this is going to happen...

So, pretty please - review? Anyone?

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

A question to Bill Chen. In "Jam or Fold Tables" for attacker (i.e. small blind) with KT offsuit strategy is "JAM" meaning SB should push with stack/BB ratio 50 or less. I've made some calculations using linear programming method and got another results:

stack/BB KTo % jam
50 41.08%
49 0.00%
48 0.00%
47 8.73%
46 100.00%
45 83.50%
44 100.00%
43 6.25%
42 21.70%
41 19.34%
40 20.33%
39 43.36%
38 38.07%
37 32.53%
36- 100.00%

Comments?

Andrzej Nironen

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

On page 268, the authors propose a preflop strategy of raising each time we enter the pot and to bet from a minimum a 2BB 5-6 off the button and 3BB on the button with an adequate distribution of hands that have to be defined.

I would like to know if the authors have already used this strategy with success playing online.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

Yes, without going into numbers we've been much more successful than we thought we would be, although much of the success is over thousands of NL-multis. I don't think simply making lots of money proves what we are doing is correct though since a lot of the NL play is quite weak. There are probably many unsound opening strategies that would work.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

Bill:

I haven't had the opportunity to fawn over you since the WSOP, as you already know I am the president of the Bill Chen fan club. I haven't picked up the book yet, but I hope that you have left signed copies with Gamblers Book Club or the Gamblers General Store for me to buy myself as a new years present [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Would love to discuss Badugi math with you sometime soon, but I'll wait till I am done with your book before bugging you.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] - aka Bill Chen Fanboy #1

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

P.48:
<B,call> = p(A has nuts)(-1) + p(A has a bluff)(+5)
<B,call> = (0.2)(-1) + (5)x

Shouldn't it be:
<B,call> = p(A has nuts)(-1) + p(A has a bluff)(+5)
<B,call> = (1-x)(-1) + (5)x

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bill:
I am the president of the Bill Chen fan club...I haven't picked up the book yet

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[ QUOTE ]

- aka Bill Chen Fanboy #1,126

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP.