Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

How much of the concepts in this book can be applied to Small stakes NL Hold em (NL100-NL200) ?

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
How much of the concepts in this book can be applied to Small stakes NL Hold em (NL100-NL200) ?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is about concepts that apply to any game, not game or size specific, so I don't see why it wouldn't be good for NL 100-200.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

This book is going to change poker!

Wow after reading it for just a day, I am amazed at the clear path the author takes.

The math is not exactly difficult, but if you plan on understanding every equation (not necessary) plan on multiplying your reading time by quite a bit.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
How much of the concepts in this book can be applied to Small stakes NL Hold em (NL100-NL200) ?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think all of the concepts can be applied to NLHE 100-200, but none of them can be applied simply. The books is difficult to understand as applied even to the simplified toy games. It doesn't give any easy-to-follow advice at all for real poker games.

Ultimately, the book tells you how to answer questions such as "Given the range of hands I'd have played this way so far, and given my opponent's most likely range of hands, and given the pot size, how often do I need to bluff on the river with bet-size N in order to ensure that I can not be exploited?"

But it doesn't give you any pat answers. It just helps you set up the problem so that you'll have some idea of what factors move the answer in one direction and what factors move the answer in the other direction, etc.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How much of the concepts in this book can be applied to Small stakes NL Hold em (NL100-NL200) ?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is about concepts that apply to any game, not game or size specific, so I don't see why it wouldn't be good for NL 100-200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I doubt that things like Game theory is very useful in this softer games.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How much of the concepts in this book can be applied to Small stakes NL Hold em (NL100-NL200) ?

[/ QUOTE ]

It is about concepts that apply to any game, not game or size specific, so I don't see why it wouldn't be good for NL 100-200.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I doubt that things like Game theory is very useful in this softer games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't gotten too far into the book yet, but I think Bill would disagree with you. One of points I have got to is adjusting as more information becomes available, so as you play on in a soft game you factor in how your opponents play to derive your proper strategy based on all of the data available to you. In other words the books goal is to help you with ANY game.

Mike

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Bill,

Seeing as your a Pokerstars sponsored player any chance of you pushing them to put into the VIP store?

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

I just got this book and waded my way into Part III a bit.

This is not a book. It should now be officially referred to as a tome.

Its gonna take me a while to get through this one.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

Just ordered mine!

I'm getting a chubby just thinking about it. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

I pre-ordered Mathematics of Poker at least a few days before it hit the printers. I still have not recieved it. What should I do about this?

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

From whom did you order? If Amazon check your order status. Mine shipped yesterday and I ordered around the same time you did. If elsewhere give them a call.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

I just got the book and it sure looks awesome. Just got through chapter 1, and found an error however. On p17-18 it covers the probability of flopping a flush and says that it's 33/4020.

11/50 * 10/49 * 9/48 = 990/117600. This reduces to 33/3920 and not 33/4020.

Just an FYI...

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

Hi Chuck,

Any idea when it will hit Borders?

Thanks.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

wow is this a deep book. Probly won't be able to drink as much as I'd like while reading it. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

Is this the appropriate place for extensive content discussion? So far, I like it and expect it to spawn some lively discussion.

I did pick up one error on page 48. The unconditional probabilities p(A_has_the_nuts) and p(A_has_a_bluff) in the equation for <B,call> should be replaced by probabilities conditional on the event "A_bets".

p(A_has_the_nuts|A_bets) = 0.2/(0.2+x)

p(A_has_a_bluff|A_bets) = x/(0.2+x)

Notice that these will sum to 1. This change leaves the critical value x*=0.04 unaffected, but game value will now be seen to be a non-linear function of x. The primary conclusions don't depend on linearity and are unaffected.

A similar error occurs on page 56 in the expression for <A,call>.

Patrick Sileo

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

Read the book.
The game theory discussed apply equally to any game.

I wouldn't be supprised if this book by itself gave us another forum here at 2p2 just for poker game theory.

btw It does give lots of simply stated no limit advice of great value. The problem is that each nugget is scattered throughout the book in the section of where it is explained, and it is rarely included in the end of section key points. It also gives you the reasons (usualy with "proof") behind many of the general guidelines you see quoted here and in many other books.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

I am just through the first 3 chapters and it is an amazing book. Those that have commented on the math and being pretty easy - it is, and they do an EXCELLENT job of explaining and re-referencing equations, etc. so that you can follow along and get the concepts if the formula looks intimidating.

Great read so far and can't wait to keep going!

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be supprised if this book by itself gave us another forum here at 2p2 just for poker game theory.


[/ QUOTE ]

It would be nice if more of these topics hit the theory forum. All too often the theory forum reads like the poker 101 forum.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

i must say that this growing errata list concerns me, especially if Chen says that they took their time with this.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

Whatever you do, do NOT click on the link this person provides in his profile.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

wow... my apologies for that.. this was a blog that i had a long time ago, and have since deleted.. i guess someone else registered that blogspot name and made a mockery of it. the link has been taken out of my profile. thank you for pointing it out

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

No problem. When you spend months and even years revisitng the same material numerous times that's an error that is easy to make. Glad to be of service. No harm done since I'm NOT an expert in your field and I was able to spot your error. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

Hey Patrick, good to see you posting again.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

>The primary conclusions don't depend on linearity and are unaffected.

More precisely, the conclusions depend only on x* (unchanged) and monotonicity (which is satisfied), and so remain valid.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

got the book today. but after browsing this thread i'm really afraid that my desire to read this book is somewhat dampened. i mean, yeah, i'm almost done my BSc in Math/CompSci, so i wont have any trouble with the math per se, but i dont want to be second-guessing and double-checking everything written in the book either (i just dont have the time). here's to hoping that the math in the second edition of the book will be a little more carefully checked.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

I think the people who are mad about the typos are probably underestimating how hard it is to find every single error in a book this size.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
got the book today. but after browsing this thread i'm really afraid that my desire to read this book is somewhat dampened. i mean, yeah, i'm almost done my BSc in Math/CompSci, so i wont have any trouble with the math per se, but i dont want to be second-guessing and double-checking everything written in the book either (i just dont have the time). here's to hoping that the math in the second edition of the book will be a little more carefully checked.

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't go back and reread the thread, but it looked like none of the conclusions have been wrong, just some of the supporting details.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

From what I have seen so far, typos and errors are minor - on a level to be expected given the material. If it is read like a standard non-ficton book, they will likely not even be noticed. If read like a math text, they will be found -- with the correction often obvious after a little thought. Issues that are not so obvious will likely be taken up here.

The greatest benefit, IMHO, comes from carefully working through the material to see what drives the results. Be glad to find small items that need correction - it means you are doing it "right" and will profit from the effort.

Re: Good News/Bad News/Good News
 

Bill or anyone else who is qualified:

I'd like to take a mathematics refresher course before reading your book, can you recommend a good book or software application for an adult who hasn't attended a math course in 20 years, yet is a very fast learner? I think it will be like getting back on a bike for me.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

Re: Good News/Bad News/Good News
 

I just got mine today from Amazon.ca

Read through the first couple of chapters and I'm very excited about the potential of this book.

TT, if you had some math and/or stat skills before then the first 2 chapters are all you need as a refresher in my opinion. There are a couple of pages that you'll need to read twice but it is all laid out and explained very well.

rvg

Re: Good News/Bad News/Good News
 

[ QUOTE ]
Bill or anyone else who is qualified:

I'd like to take a mathematics refresher course before reading your book, can you recommend a good book or software application for an adult who hasn't attended a math course in 20 years, yet is a very fast learner? I think it will be like getting back on a bike for me.

TT [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm certainly not qualified TT but I agree with RVG - the first two chapters do a good job of refreshing, building the basic statistic foundation, and really explain it well. I was particularly impressed with how they used plain language and examples to talk about some of the results presented by the equations.

Plus they reference back to the original equations frequently so you can flip back a couple of pages, re-read the explanation of the underlying formula and jump back to where you were with a clear understanding of the section.

HTH.

edit: If I had to make a recommendation I would say an undergraduate entry stats class would cover most of the material covered in the first few chapters and flipping through the rest it looks like it could be covered in a first year calc class to cover some of the logs stuff, etc.

Re: Good News/Bad News/Good News
 

i knew my BSc maths would come handy one day [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Good News/Bad News/Good News
 

OK maybe a dumb question but...
If one renders the opponent's choices indifferent, how can he make a mistake?

Re: Good News/Bad News/Good News
 

[ QUOTE ]


TT, if you had some math and/or stat skills before then the first 2 chapters are all you need as a refresher in my opinion. There are a couple of pages that you'll need to read twice but it is all laid out and explained very well.

rvg

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Good News/Bad News/Good News
 

[ QUOTE ]
OK maybe a dumb question but...
If one renders the opponent's choices indifferent, how can he make a mistake?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a dumb question at all. If you play in an unexploitable way, you do tend to equalize the expectation of SOME of your opponent's choices, but not necessarily ALL of them. Mistakes are still possible, except in very simple examples.

Also, your opponent also needs to be careful not to play in an exploitable way.

Re: The Mathematics of Poker
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Chuck,

Any idea when it will hit Borders?

Thanks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Good News/Bad News/Good News
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK maybe a dumb question but...
If one renders the opponent's choices indifferent, how can he make a mistake?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a dumb question at all. If you play in an unexploitable way, you do tend to equalize the expectation of SOME of your opponent's choices, but not necessarily ALL of them. Mistakes are still possible, except in very simple examples.

Also, your opponent also needs to be careful not to play in an exploitable way.

[/ QUOTE ]

also, indifference means 'indifferent when we consider the total range of opponent's possible hands.' it doesn't mean your opponent is indifferent for every possible hand he might have. if you bet and he has the nuts on the river, he had better raise.

for a lot of opponent's hands (maybe most or even all of them in some games), there will be a single correct play. but if the opponent somehow couldn't see his hole cards, but only knew his hand range, then he would be indifferent.

Re: Good News/Bad News/Good News
 

So if we know his range we can make our actions unexploitable against it but he can still misplay his actual hand? Sounds plausible.

Re: Good News/Bad News/Good News
 

Game theoretic equilibria have the property that no individual player can change his action and make himself strictly better off (vs the equilibrium strategies of the other players). They come in two forms: pure strategies and mixed strategies. The former consist of a set of non-random actions (one per player). If a player takes an out-of-equilibrium action, he may be worse off. Since poker is a zero-sum game, when your opponent is worse off, you are (generally) better off.

In a mixed-strategy equilibrium, each player is randomizing over a set of non-random actions. Let these actions be say {A,B,C}, selected with probabilities p(A), p(B), p(C), respectively, where p(A)+p(B)+p(C)=1. It is a property of this type of equilibrium that a player's expected payoff is unchanged if he chooses a different randomization over the same strategy set {A,B,C}. In this sense, mixed-strategy equilibria are "mistake-proof". However, should an "incorrect" action "D" be included in the randomization, the player now may well be worse off, as in the pure strategy equilibrium case.

In general, game theory's non-exploitable strategies are most useful against better opponents, since you cannot be exploited. On the other hand, it can be worth playing a theoretically exploitable strategy against an inferior opponent so that you can fully exploit him.

Re: Good News/Bad News/Good News
 

I have a question regarding finding nash equilibria. is there necessarily only one nash equilibrium in say HU poker and if so, why? Is this true for all zero-sum games ? I don't know much about game theory but my intuitive guess is that there is only one.