Killer Poker: By the Numbers?

[MyTurn2Raise]

a lot

"mathematics of poker" looked at many games that had some assumptions that, while applicable, are not direct situations in most poker games.
"By the Numbers," on the other hand, looked at many specific scenarios that a player does encounter and looked at the maths behind them, such as:
how often does your opponent hit top pair on the flop?
how often does your opponent have a draw on certain boards with a starting range?
what hand strength looks like when the flop pairs?
etc

[El_Hombre_Grande]

The book is very dry, and very informative. It ought to be read by serious players while intaking huge quantities of caffeine. And for what its worth, I've read some of the Killer Poker series and this is the opposite of the others. The others are light, easy reading that are mildly useful and are not going to dramatically alter anyone's game. This is a book that is chock full of important stuff. But its the hard, important, math stuff.

[TrainHardDieHard]

Alright, so what's the best math poker book out there? Do you guys think Killer Poker is it ?

[phydaux]

Texas Hold'em Odds and Probabilities by Matthew Hilger is next on my reading list.

I always said that if enough people recommended Killer Poker By the Numbers I would give it another try. Maybe after Texas Hold'em Odds and Probabilities.

I am currently reading Killer Poker No Limit, and while it isn't ground breaking and I can't stand the author's "Dr. Susse" style of writing, it isn't bad. It outlines a decent, and most likely winning, style of NL cash game play.

[chumofchance]

I'm reading KPBTN right now, and I really, really like it. Then again I also study theoretical physics at Harvard, so I tend to like mathy stuff in general [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Guerrera has a very clear (which could = boring for some people) style of writing, and he explains basic probability theory in the context of NLHE very well.

But I don't think there's any point in getting the book cause you think it'll be "good" for you - it's not gonna do much for you that PT + PokerStove don't already do very well. It's just a nice way to get a better theoretical understanding of how poker works - learning to think about NLHE (and every other form of poker) in terms of a hand-range, equity-based framework is fun and interesting. But if you care about deepening your theoretical understanding of poker (as opposed to your practical understanding), yeah, don't get the book, you won't enjoy it.

Disclaimer: I'm very new to poker, so I'm not widely-read at all. But from what I've read so far in Sklansky and Miller's NLHTP, the math in KPBTN is much "mathier" - Guerrera talks a bunch about combinatorics, etc., not just how to compute simple EV calculations.

Also, I tried reading "Mathematics of Poker" and thought it seemed completely useless - KPBTN is really just a book about simple probability theory, it has NOTHING to do with applying game theory to poker (which doesn't strike me as being an obviously useful thing to do - but whatever, I'll read MOP at some point, maybe my opinion will change). So if books like NLHTP are high-school math, KPBTN is college level and MOP is like a goofy graduate seminar or something.

[TrainHardDieHard]

[ QUOTE ]

KPBTN is really just a book about simple probability theory, it has NOTHING to do with applying game theory to poker change).

[/ QUOTE ]

You meant MOP instead of KPBTN here, right ?

[Gelford]

chum ... Funny how you talk about learning poker from a theoretical POW, and then in the same sentence claim MOP to be useless

It is a good primer in how to think about poker and how to contruct a solid game, with some nice concept, like betting a worse hand preemtively etc.


MOP did much more for me than TOP in many ways.

[chumofchance]

I think I mean KPBTN - MOP is mostly about game theory, right? Ha if not then I'm really embarrassed - like I said I didn't get very far with it. See next post for why not.

All I was trying to say is that KPBTN at heart is just a simple probability book - it teaches you how to use combinations, permutations etc. to look at poker hands. There's no "higher" math.

[Gelford]

[ QUOTE ]
I think I mean KPBTN - MOP is mostly about game theory, right? Ha if not then I'm really embarrassed - like I said I didn't get very far with it. See next post for why not.

All I was trying to say is that KPBTN at heart is just a simple probability book - it teaches you how to use combinations, permutations etc. to look at poker hands. There's no "higher" math.

[/ QUOTE ]


Right .... and yeah, MOP is strickly a game theory book. It walks your thru a lot of small poker(like) games for building intuition.

This post is has the same spirit as MOP.

[tangerine]

seems good
i know it is a math/stats book
will this book good for short-handed game?

thanks