I think it's most clear to say that Nash equilibria certainly do exist in 3+ player games, but they're not necessarily as satisfying as solution concepts as in 2player games. Heads-up, if both guys are playing optimally, neither of them has any incentive to change their strategies. But, that's not necessarily the case in 3+ player games.
Anyhow I got the book on my Kindle last night, and I'm enjoying it so far. I have sort of a question though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Donkey111
Like most 2+2 books, it is quite rigorous but the author doesn't adventure himself into the nitty-gritty of making a GTO approximation of limit hold'em... Instead, he has a more qualitative approach which reads quite well for those who aren't mathematically inclined.
|
What do people think of this book's style as far as its approach to presenting theory? I imagine that Phil could have presented a lot of the theory with a lot more equations and such, and perhaps that would have been even more useful to the people who managed to slog through it (a la MoP, which I liked a lot but was a bit heavy on the algebra, imo).
When you read a poker book, do you want to learn the math behind things so that you can work out new situations on your own? Or do you prefer something that you can read through without taxing your brain so much? What are the trade-offs as you see them, and where is the sweet spot?