It's not a one and then you're done book.

The book teaches you quantitative analysis methods as they relate to poker. How often do you see people reading through a college textbook then becoming a professional in whatever area they are in (especially in a field as tough as quantitative analysis)?

I mean, I didn't understand it after reading it several times over. I mean, if you really don't want to go through and learn everything, that is your decision. But personally I haven't taken algebra in almost 15 years too, so I'm not really well versed on that subject matter (although there are free algebra calculators online, just to give you a hint how I cheat a little).

But I mean, the book is a very tough read, I agree. Like I said, the math in the book is tougher than my grad-level business courses, and most people in my classes think that math is extremely rough (although I doubt any of them have undergrad degrees in a math discipline).

But you get my point. The math in here is still very much the same (although MoP is tougher) as what I'm learning in my business classes, literally. Conceptually, a lot of people just focus on the optimal play sections, but the whole book is great, and any part of the book makes it worth a buy.

I don't recall any sort of math in highschool that was used to express soft concepts. Hs math is a representation of a grapical construct, and has nothing to do with qualatative work. I had 2years of calculus, and I held the curve, if you really want to know. I was probably the only one that "really got" math in my class.

I somehow agree with that. I bought the book and read it one time, and I re-read some chapters from time to time. I really like the book but I think it's really hard to get everything out of it without being familiar with a lot of the calculations and the "math reflexes" they use.

But think about this for a second everyone. Most of you don't know the math behind bankroll management for exemple, but still you're not playing with a single buy in bankroll, right ? So not knowing the math doesn't mean you can't understand the concepts behind this.

My point is that there is a lot of math in this book to demonstrate all of the conclusion they make. So they don't just go and say "ok you should do this and this", they actually solve toy games and make calculations to prove their point. That's what makes the book powerfull, because most other poker book (or should I say all ?) just give you the insights of the autor without any proof of what is said. They have a mathematician approach and in this sense they can't be wrong.

But you don't need to understand everything. Well you need to if you want to make sure that they didn't make any mistakes but you can trust them I believe. You can go through the book, read some simple toy games if you want but mostly just read the text and the conclusions and you'll learn something. And the good thing is, what you learned will never be proven wrong, because it's already proven right in the book itself.

Dear Jerrod Ankenman,

thank you very much for the great content you produced.
I am trying to elaborate an excel spreadsheet where i can approximate my average buy in for a session, while multitabling 6 mtts, using Kelly Criterion.
I have seen some differente formulas out there. At this point do you have a clear insight how to do it?

Thank you.
Best regards,

Luigidelmare

Is there an error in Example 4.4 on P52?

Is says the Player B will be drawing dead when a Ace or King hits, which will happen 4/45 times. However, in the EV calc it gives p(A or K) as 4/41.

I have this book. I think there is a lot of math in it. The main point for me is not so much the fact that there is math, but why anyone would want to go through it.

I think why this book is celebrated is because it is one of the first ones which speak about GTO and the Nemesis strategies in depth. The math is there as proof of these concepts - or basically what led to them. I think it was a breakthrough in that respect.

It is hard to follow and I am not sure if a non-mathematician would be sitting down at home performing such calculations when they would study poker.

As for the authors' success in poker used as a way to convince people that it is a good book, the argument is laughable. Their bracelets were years back, few, and mostly in limit holdem. Not that good backup for the qualities of the book.

It kind of makes one think that if you get too caught up with theory, you might miss actually playing the game and succeeding in it.

The text is correct above the formula. As far as the formula goes there's a typo, but 4/41 * 0 is the same as 4/45 * 0.

Has anyone stated an Efficient Market Hypothesis for Poker yet? If not, then I do it here. You are allowed to quote me