The Mathematics of Poker - Page 19

CanadaLowball · #**181** 12-13-2006, 01:52 PM

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

sobefuddled · #**182** 12-13-2006, 02:11 PM

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]

curious123 · #**183** 12-13-2006, 02:17 PM

Hey Patrick, good to see you posting again.

Patrick Sileo · #**184** 12-13-2006, 03:03 PM

>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.

CanadaLowball · #**185** 12-13-2006, 07:39 PM

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.

NSchandler · #**186** 12-13-2006, 08:27 PM

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.

poincaraux · #**187** 12-13-2006, 08:28 PM

[ 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.

Patrick Sileo · #**188** 12-13-2006, 08:53 PM

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.

*TT* · #**189** 12-14-2006, 03:19 AM

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]

rvg72 · #**190** 12-14-2006, 03:27 AM

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