Controversial?

[wilneedheart]

If scientific reasoning were limited to the logical processes of arithmetic, we should not get very far in our understanding of the physical world. One might as well attempt to grasp the game of poker entirely by the use of the mathematics of probability.

-- Vannevar Bush, architect of the Internet

[qpw]

Quite true.

Poker's only 95% probability maths.

Probably [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ev_slave]

Very true. If you played solely based on math, you would only bet when you had it, call when you got odds, or check/fold if you weren't getting a good price.

This would be a very exploitable strategy.

Example: A player calls PF and I know he'll fold to a bet if he misses the flop. I bet, he folds. Easy money. The read guided the play, not math.

[qpw]

[ QUOTE ]
Very true. If you played solely based on math, you would only bet when you had it, call when you got odds, or check/fold if you weren't getting a good price.

This would be a very exploitable strategy.

Example: A player calls PF and I know he'll fold to a bet if he misses the flop. I bet, he folds. Easy money. The read guided the play, not math.

[/ QUOTE ]
In my opinion the conclusion you seem to be drawing is not supported by what you've said.

Just because you read something non mathematical doesn't mean the maths has flown out of the window.

The whole edifice of poker is probability theory. The fact that some of the things you feed into the equations are not card/bet/pot values doesn't make the maths vanish.

If you think "that player probably will/won't make that play", that's just another factor in the whole computation. The fact that you don't conciously do the maths every time you make a decision doesn't mean it's not there.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
If you played solely based on math, you would only bet when you had it, call when you got odds, or check/fold if you weren't getting a good price.

[/ QUOTE ]
Nonsense. Game theory is part of mathematics, and some of the earliest nontrivial work in game theory was on bluffing in poker.

One of the reasons poker is so profitable is because so many people think poker is not mathematical, and can't be bothered to learn the basics. However, even top notch poker players could play better than they do now (and make more money from their imperfect opponents) if they understood more game theory and applied it properly.

[Teddy_FBI]

no way is it rigged that is so fake!

[ev_slave]

[ QUOTE ]
Just because you read something non mathematical doesn't mean the maths has flown out of the window.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, that's true. Even having the read to bet to see if he has it based on that he'll miss more than half the time, so up to PSB should be profitable, yada yada yada. My argument is based on the fact that you DO use a lot of subjective probability. I was discounting that as the pure math the quote's talking about since lots of people assign subjective probabilities with no idea to its accuracy.

[ QUOTE ]
Nonsense. Game theory is part of mathematics, and some of the earliest nontrivial work in game theory was on bluffing in poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Also very correct. The quote said understanding poker using mathematics of probability was not a great goal and I was supporting that.

I've read TOP and I know about the bluff game-theory examples, and I try to use it to design bets to narrow my information sets and use something as close to Bayesian Updating as I can at a table to assign hand ranges. I was just giving a simple answer to the question. Sorry to upset, lol.

[wilneedheart]

Definition of a FISH: someone who uses probability theory 90% of the time. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]