This is probably the best poker book ive read so far. Reading this book there are a lot of great concepts but it seems like they are more in theory then in actual practice. Anyone agree?disagree?why

There are a lot of great fundamentals in the first section and second section. But some of the concepts like for instance the bayesian theorem dont seem like they can be heavily calculated while at the table. Ex.. the part with the maniac at the tournament with 7 times the small stack. Using bayesian theorem we can continue to refine information about the player through each street/action. Without doing the mathematics of the theorem at the table it seems pretty useless to just throw a number out there without using the bayesian equation. Right?wrong? Look at the example of the doctor testing using bayesian theorem. We have to constantly keep refining information in the priori distribution at the table about every single player. Seem like a stretch? Or did they mean to apply it in a different way?

As far as the optimal section i know that is in the development stage and can be applied to poker in a "copycat" fashion. The book has the best fundamentals I have ever read so far. However, it seems like some of the concepts are more applicable away from the table then actually at the table(as post analysis). How i perceive this book constantly changes as i re-read my notes to get a better understanding(kind of like using bayesian theorem). Would you agree this book teaches more on how to think then how to play. But actually tells you how to play because it teaches you how to think which consequently produces your results in your actions in the game.

Also, what would you say is the best way to grasp the information in this book and apply it to your poker game?

nice post.

i am reading the book for the second time. I read it about 6 months ago, actually before the Harrington books- I think this was a mistake. The Harrington books helped me tremendously with my game and now going back and reading "mathematics" the book is crystal clear.

It is definitely a book that teaches you how to think-not necessarily how to play. The authors point this out in the introduction. I think it provides the principles which your skills and play (or philosophy) can be based upon.

They apply known laws (bayes theorem) to poker in a not too disimilar way than what most very good poker players are doing already-calculating EVs and applying that to the situation at hand-pun intended.

The way I see it is if we can grasp the principles of the book (the math theory) and apply some of the "laws" then our decisions during a game become easier and we can actually concentrate more on the abstract part of the game (i.e the feel of the moment and tells) because we have a firm grasp on the concrete part of the game (current odds and expectation). IMO many of the poor players try to do the reverse- they try to "read" people's hands, bluffs, tells before they have a firm grasp of the principles of the game. These are the folks who will win the occasional big pot and bluffs but over the long haul end up negative because, well math is math and the numbers will never change as long as we are playing with the same 52 card deck.

An example is there analysis of using bayes theorem to decide the expectation of top pair vs a good draw (open end, flush, etc.). They suggest that top pair should not push all in but should simply bet on the flop and again on the turn if draw does not push after flop. They showed that pushing all-in has a negative expectation against just betting through the turn. This is for short-medium stacks and is similar to the Stop n Go. For larger stacks they showed that top pair should in fact push because the expectation increases but the Stop n Go play expectation stays the same.
Taken from this is that draws have positive expectation for pushing with small to medium stacks but not for larger stacks.

So back to playing in the moment...if faced with decision to push with a draw vs top pair, in my mind if we have a firm grasp of the expectation (math theory and our cards) then we can play with much of our intention on the player...so we can now play the man more effectively because we "own" the knowledge of our cards and our chances. If we know we have positive expectation by pushing with our medium stack on a draw and we have picked up weakness or even put our opponent on top or second pair..we feel confident in pushing our chips in (depending on other factors as well cash, tourney level, etc). did I make sense?

Someof this may seem elementary to the veterans of the forum but for me as a relative novice-moderate player. it just clears my decision making a bit.