The Mathematics of Poker

[KungFuManchu]

anyone take a snapshot? I still have a few days till mine arrives, Im curious to see what intimitading looks like.

[BillChen]

Sorry the FPP Store will be carrying the book soon. I can't confirm just yet, but there will likely be an event where you can get a signed copy of the book at the PCA in the Bahamas.

[TheBody]

Thanks Bill, will definitely be spending my FPPs on your book when it becomes available and look forward to reading it.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm paranoid, but I have a strong feeling that this book will become the bible for bot developers.

[/ QUOTE ]
That was my continual thought as I read through the book: Computers can't beat (very good) humans at poker yet, but whenever they get to that point, it will be by using the concepts presented in this book.

[mattnxtc]

whens the study group gonna get going..i get my book on the 23 and i have a feeling im gonna need help applyin this to the variety of games

[Guruman]

a question:

should one use basic hand-reading in conjunction with optimal bluffing?

example:

If a player checkraises two people on the turn in holdem and then leads the river should we even bother doing the bluff math?

In 2-7 tripledraw if a player is pat on the second round and has been betting the whole way, should we bother looking at the pot size to determine whether or not to bluffraise on a third-round brick, or should we just make a categorical fold?

intuitively I think that the answer is to be sure that you're in a situation where the opponent is capable of folding at least sometimes, and that mixed bluffing strategies are categorically exploited when our opponent is a non-folding situation. I guess the key is identifying those situations.

I could be wrong though. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Nichomacheo]

On page 77, it says

<X, bet turn> = (29/44)($200)-$50
<X, bet turn> = $54.55

Doesn't it equal $81.81? What am I not figuring in?

N

[Jerrod Ankenman]

[ QUOTE ]
On page 77, it says

<X, bet turn> = (29/44)($200)-$50
<X, bet turn> = $54.55

Doesn't it equal $81.81? What am I not figuring in?

N

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this isn't terribly clear.

p 77. "X still has a clear call, getting more than 3 to 1 from the pot" should be -> "Y still has a clear call, getting 3 to 1 from the pot."

then below that:

<X, bet turn> = [p(Y misses flop)][p(X wins)(new pot value) - (cost of bet)]
<X, bet turn> = (30/45)[(29/44)(200) - (50)]
<X, bet turn> = $54.55

(81.81 is the equity for X when Y misses the flop, but the equity of playing it this way is 54.55 beacause sometimes he just loses the pot immediately on the turn).

Thanks for pointing this out.

[Nichomacheo]

Thanks for the quick response. Wouldnt it be clearer to say something like

"The value of checking the flop if Y checks behind, assuming that X bets the turn when it doesnt complete Y's hand is

<X, X checks-Y checks flop> = [p(Y misses turn)][p(Y misses river)(new pot value) - (cost of bet)]"

I'm really enjoying the book. If I come across anything else thats unclear to me, I'll make a post about it. I appreciate the authors' hard work.

N

[Jerrod Ankenman]

[ QUOTE ]
a question:

should one use basic hand-reading in conjunction with optimal bluffing?

example:

If a player checkraises two people on the turn in holdem and then leads the river should we even bother doing the bluff math?

In 2-7 tripledraw if a player is pat on the second round and has been betting the whole way, should we bother looking at the pot size to determine whether or not to bluffraise on a third-round brick, or should we just make a categorical fold?

intuitively I think that the answer is to be sure that you're in a situation where the opponent is capable of folding at least sometimes, and that mixed bluffing strategies are categorically exploited when our opponent is a non-folding situation. I guess the key is identifying those situations.

I could be wrong though. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in an optimal strategy, there really shouldn't be very many places where you wouldn't fold. Assuming that your opponents won't snow (which is your assumption in the case where you claim that they are in "non-folding situations") might allow them to exploit you by doing just that. It's easy to see why. Suppose that you never bluff-raise the river. Then they can just exploit you by folding the worst hands that they would play in this manner instead of calling your raise. Then your strategy isn't optimal.

So no, you shouldn't use "hand-reading" of that type as a tool in generating optimal strategies. The tone of your post also suggests (by your use of "optimal bluffing") that you may not understand some things about the nature of multi-street play - that is, that the solution to a game considered in isolation on the river is not necessarily (or even often) the solution to the same game carried forward from previous streets. We have a clear example of this idea in our book (ch 20) which considers a holdem hand where the flush comes in on the river and one player is known to hold a mixture of flush draws and bluffs.