mathematics of poker X months later?

[smbruin22]

i have been curious about this subject... mathematics of poker had a huge thread (almost arnold snyder length) when it came out and people seemed to really like it.

how do people like it 8 months later? (a guess on the release date)

i'm on vacation and have brought very few books, but this is one of them, so hopefully i'll be able to tell you in a couple of weeks.

[SplawnDarts]

It's interesting. I doubt there are very many people who have improved their game because of it, though. The material most likely to improve the average player's game, namely the Bayesian inference stuff, was so poorly presented that I suspect few people got it. In fact, i have proof that very few did.

[Bet-and-win88]

[ QUOTE ]
namely the Bayesian inference stuff, was so poorly presented that I suspect few people got it

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree and was very disappointed!

[Troll_Inc]

I used to bicycle a lot and was a moderately ok local amateur. I had very very little natural ability, and by all rights I should have been about 2-3 levels lower than where I ended up. I trained hard and smart, and when this book came out (see link below), it put in words a lot of what I knew but offered very good training programs.

Every cyclist bought the book and was seen sitting down at the Euro-cafes sipping their coffees for like a month. They might have changed something for a month or two, but then quickly all went back to their undisciplined training programs.

The book served me well the rest of my competitive cycling days when I was willing to use it correctly.

[Red_Diamond]

Geee Zads! Someone edit that link so this thread can be readable!

And for the reccord, months later I still have the book, and it's my favourite. Worth literally more than a hundred other poker books combined. Now I just wish there was some sort of study group going on...

[Troll_Inc]

[ QUOTE ]
Geee Zads! Someone edit that link so this thread can be readable!


[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.amazon.com/Cyclists-Training-...2202&sr=8-1

I browsed through the book at Barnes and Noble when it first came out. I still have a headache.

[Hattifnatt]

I am very intrested in mathematics and such and looked forward to this book but omg... I doubt anyone here actually have read the whole thing... might be wrong though.

Answer honest now.

[CasinoR7]

I am studying econometrics in college, so obviously I am very interested in this subject. I haven't read the book yet, because it was only delivered today. I won't be reading it any time soon, there are 12 other poker books that I want to read first. But I am looking forward to it.

[JLD]

I really liked the book as well. I have an econ background and comfortability with math which may have made it somewhat easier. What I really liked about the book was the discussion of opponent's hand ranges and your likely equity against them (similar to Phil's G-Bucks article in Bluff magazine awhiel back). The other thing I liked was the discussion of continuation betting which was a more theoretical discussion of last month's excellent 2+2 article on the success of continuation betting with various flops and # of opponents.

I think the book helped reinforce the importance of putting my opponent on a hand range and deciding to act based upon that. In short, I think it helped me think about poker more deeply.

As comparison, I have read both NLHTAP and Largay and found both helpful in their own way as well. I think much of what has been discussed about Largay on this board has been taken out of context or are relatively minor points compared to his main messages. I am very anxious to read the upcoming PNL. From my view, I think one of the key missing discussion topics which could make an excellent book is betting patterns by opponent type. I think this is one of the key benefits that experience provides to better players.