Just started this book last night,really impressed so far.

I've always thought I had a solid mathyness fundamentals and mental shortcuts, but for $20 I gotta see if there is anything I'm missing out on. Just picked up a copy of the E-Book, just hoping for one chapter to have something in it I don't already know =) That would be worth it for me.

Is there a thread for hole card confessions? Anyone review it yet?

Is there a poker math that matters video series on DTB?

If so I might have to sign up and check it out.

There is a video series there called Poker By Number. It doesn't have everything in the book, but it's helpful for more visual learners.

QTip, any chance you'll write a math book for PLO in the future? I'm also curious if any of it would be beneficial for a PLO player. Thanks.

I know very little about PLO. I took a look at the game a few years ago and was impressed with the combinatorial nightmare. The basics of the betting math are certainly going to be the same as well as the basics to combinations. However, I would think a person would be better off getting a book aimed at PLO instead of mine if that's their specific game.

Bought both his books at the same time, well worth the money imo. Very easy and pleasant to read.

Id highly recommend this book.
As a pro player of almost 5 years, who buys most of the books out there, Id say this is one of the most relevant and accessible books for today's game.
A lot of the Maths is quite simple and the author has presented it so. The best part is that you are given the tools to 'walk the walk' and so improve your understanding of the concepts once you put the book down. This book will not be gathering dust on my shelf until I've taken the advice given and incorporated it into my study drills.
Cheers for a great book.

Pretty Solid Book. I knew most of it already, but you do a great job of explaining things. I know many will get alot of benefit from the material. Nice Work.

BOOOOOO!

A roll like 1-2 has two different possibilities.

Die one: 1
Die two: 2

Die one: 2
Die two: 1

It's the same for the others except the doubles.

You need to get some backgammon in your life. It's a ton of fun!

When was the last time you cleaned your ears?

The book looks very interesting. I have started reading it and did have one question --- I see from the beginning that it seems geared towards No-Limit Cash Games. Do the same concepts apply for No-Limit Tournaments too?

Thanks!

Gonna order this book because of this thread. Thanks

hi qtip, got the maths book, great so far, but theres 2 things i cant understand, can u please clear up for me, its the quiz under the value bet section, questions 3, the answers is 0.53($20) + 0.31(-$20)+ 0.16 (-$40)
why are we losing -$40?? is it because we incluing whats already in the pot+our bet. if thats the case then why are we only winning $20 0.53% of the time?? shouldent we include the pot $20 + his call with worse also $20= $40 total

also question 7 , you say betting is -ev because hes calling with 47% worse hands and 53% better hands , theres $20 in the pot and villain has $20 left
so the equation is (0.47x $20) + (0.53x -$20)
so $20 we win 0.47% is his call, and the -$20 we lose 53% of the time is our bet, but what about the $20 thats already in the pot,??
dont we win $40??, 0.47% $20 pot+ $20 his call with worse???
if thats not the case then what would the equation look like if he was folding 0.47% (instead of calling worse) and calling with better 53% of the time with $20 in the pot, wouldent it be (0.47x $20 whats in the pot) + (0.53x -$20 our bet)?? same as above?

sorry if my questions confusing, but can you please tell if im missing something thanks.

Hi paccu. I'm glad to hear you're enjoying the book. I'm sorry for the delay in this response. This is the first time I've been on 2+2 since their password problems.

Your question above seems to center on missing the difference between what I called evaluative ev and true ev in the appendix. You might want to take one more look at that section. It's a bit of a tricky concept. I'll attempt to explain it again without writing a book

Finding the true EV of a decision let's you know how much richer or poorer you'll be after you make a given decision. Let's look at the true EV of betting in this question:

53% we win $20 from him and $20 from the pot. 16% we lose our $20 bet when he bluff raises (we don't include our loss of the pot here). 31% he has a better hand and we lose our $20 bet.

.53($40) + .16(-20) + .31(-$20) = $11.8

Is $11.80 good? We have no idea. We have to compare it to something else. In this case, we're comparing it to checking. Checking looks like this.

We have the best hand 68% of the time. The pot is $20. So, we get $20 *68% of the time for an EV of $13.60.

Notice checking is about $2 higher than betting.

Notice we had to do three steps to find out checking was a better decision than betting.

1. Get the true EV of betting.
2. Get the true EV of checking.
3. Subtract 1 from 2.

Using evaluative EV, we can get this answer in one step. However, in evaluative EV we don't include our equity times the pot. That's why the answer to your question "shouldent we include the pot $20 + his call with worse also $20= $40 total" is no. Each step of the evaluative equation looks like this:

.53(20)

This is his calling when we have the best hand. We don't include our equity(pot) when using the evaluative EV method. So, the $20 here is the villain calling $20. We get his $20 53% of the time.

.31(-20)

This is him calling with a better hand. In this case, we lose our $20 (we never owned part of the pot against these hands anyway).

.16(-40)

This is him raising with a hand we beat. In this case, we lose our $20 bet as well as have him steal the $20 pot from us.


This $2 difference is shows the difference between the true ev of checking and the true ev of betting. (The amounts are off a few cents because of the rounding.)

I'm not a fan of my actual question for this one, "Is a $20 bet profitable?" Would have been better stated, "Is a $20 bet better than checking?"

Hope that helps.


Question 7 was just a fail on my part. It's been changed for printing and ebooks. It was dealt with in this thread: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/15.../#post30833750