Review: The Mathematics of Poker by Bill Chen and Jerrod Ankenman - Page 2 - Books and Publications

Andrew Prock · 02-23-2008, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foucault

I really ought to know better, having worked in the Chicago Public Schools, but there are plenty of high school graduates who couldn't follow much simpler poker books. Not sure what I was thinking, there.

You could have said "advanced high school math", or probably better "first year calculus". While there isn't much calculus in the book, anyone who absorbed all the math through that level should have no problems.

- Andrew

nerkul · 02-23-2008, 08:06 PM

C'mon, how much maths do you remember? I got most of a degree in it but unless you're practising daily it slips right out your head.

Poker Clif · 02-24-2008, 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Prock

You could have said "advanced high school math", or probably better "first year calculus". While there isn't much calculus in the book, anyone who absorbed all the math through that level should have no problems.

- Andrew

I had five college math courses*, none of which were calculus (or trig, which was also in the book), and I found it very tough going. I looked it over as a library book and decided not to buy it.

*All courses were required either for graduation or a computer science major: algebra, statistics 1 and 2, finite mathematices, and discrete mathematics.

chucky · 02-24-2008, 08:33 AM

Clearly high schools are not enough to prepare ppl to maximize value from this book. Frankly, madrassas will probably do a better job since a rote memorization of both text and commentary will produce players who instinctually are always prepared. This is because the point of ANY rational system is to essentially work independent of conscious thought and thereby see through the facade to the true heart of any situation.

PokrLikeItsProse · 02-24-2008, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foucault

Part of my frustration stems from the fact that the tidbits of practical advice that Chen and Ankenman do include are tantalizingly thought-provoking: “Bluffing in optimal poker play is often not a profitable play in and of itself. Instead, the combination of bluffing and value betting is designed to ensure the optimal strategy gains value no matter how the opponent responds”; “Betting preemptively is a perfect example of a play that has negative expectation, but the expectation of the play is less negative than the alternative of checking”; “it’s frankly terrible to find oneself in a situation with a marked open draw.” Any of these insights is worthy of several pages of extrapolation, but this work is largely left to the reader.

I actually like this quality of the book. For one thing, I actually like thinking about poker, so I like having some work to do. I also spend most of my time playing games that aren't no-limit hold em. Those "several pages of extrapolation" you desire would feel like a bit of wasted space to me if they were done using examples from NLHE, which is the popular game right now.

Squidgy_wiji · 04-14-2008, 08:00 AM

Just started reading it. I like it alot so far. Don't suppose Bill Chen and Jerrod Ankenman have 2p2 screen names?

I could use some of their help for my advanced micro economics essay

chucky · 04-14-2008, 02:22 PM

Jerrod has posted in the past, check the math of poker discussion thread from last year. He posted many times.

Scoonch101 · 02-07-2012, 10:07 PM

Just wanted to say great book and great review. Noticed a lot of people complaining that a high school education is not enough - well I'm doing year 11 maths (second last year in Australia) and had no problems following any of it, even the calculas in part 3