I hang around and search for +mathematics +poker sometimes. So if you have a discussion group, I'll comment or whatever.

I've never taken a math course in my life, and I haven't found the math at all difficult so far. It sort of implies more difficult math, but doesn't really require it. OTOH, what is there seems to take a lot of thought to apply directly to the poker table, which may be where a math background comes in.

the authors could explain a lot of things not as complex as far as math. For example the half street clairvoyance game where X can only call or fold and y must bet or check a fraction of his hands, value and bluffs. There was a simpler way explained that actually showed me how to apply that toy game solution to a real life game.

But you are right you do need a coach or like a professor to go over the book with. Thats why you should hire a game theorist who plays poker. And as far as applying it same thing. I tried for about 8 months to apply some of the things I learned in that book to real life and ti was so fustrating. Hiring a coach who knows game theory and has a good record of applying it to real life games seems like the best thign IMO. To get the most value out of the book.

Where's the list of errata? I checked the list at http://www.conjelco.com/mathofpoker/...ker-errata.pdf but that's from 2007 and all are fixed in my version.

I think I've found another bug but maybe it already made it to the list.

Ah well, might as well type the story anway.

1. 
   The value of this game as defined on page 130, if the BB would fold all the time, would be +1, not +1.5. However, in the EV calculation on page 132, it is used that we win 1.5 if the BB folds, which (I think) is a mistake.
   
   (one could redefine the game (or redefine 0EV) and say the attacker wins +1.5bb if the BB folds, but then the cost of the jam is not 2000 chips, but only 1999.5).
   
2. 
   There's a typo in the calculation below; it says
   (0.13336) (x) - x
   which should be
   (0.13336) (2x) - x
   
   Using this and fixing 1., I found a stack size of 555.495 where I could start with ATs.
   
3. 
   On page 132 it is shown that the attacker's strategy isn't pure anymore. However, from page 133 onwards, there are only pure strategies listed. Is this an approximation?
   
4. 
   As a more general remark, I don't see how the procedure, as described on the top half of page 131, is used in the discussion on page 132. On page 132, the game is solved by tweaking each player's strategy: we add ATs, we add A5s, he adds AKs, we tweak the % of ATs. It doens't look like what's described on the top half of page 131.
   

My mistake, this should be 833.924 (instead of the 833.242 from the book).

This book seems like one that someone shouldn't pass up. Probably benefits any type of poker player. Just ordered it from stars IMO.

Couldn't resist obviously.

... see cause I've been having problems trying to apply the game theory to poker ...

I have "Mathematics of Poker", First Edition.

There seem to be quite a number of errors (not covered by the Errata) in "Example 16.4 - [0,1] Game #7" with the last table at the top of page 188.

The table is "For Y at y1 (indifference between betting and checking):".

The headings are wrong:

"Y raises" should be "Y checks".
"Y calls" should be "Y bets".

The values in those 2 columns are correct.

In the next column "Difference" there are 2 errors. The difference is computed as "Y checks" minus "Y bets". The first two lines are correct, but the next 2 are not correct:

"[x1,y1] .... -1" should be "[x1,y1] .... +1"
"[y1,1] .... +1" should be "[y1,1] .... -1"

In the "Product Column" there are 4 mistakes (2 because of the changes to the "Difference" column).

The first 2 rows are correct. The next 2 need to change because of the changes to the Difference column:

"[x1,y1] .... -1(y1-x1)" should be "[x1,y1] .... y1-x1"
"[y1,1] .... 1-y1" should be "[y1,1] .... -1(1-y1)"

The "Product" column for "Total" has 2 typos. The first is obvious, the second not so obvious.

Since there is no "y2" in the product column, this is clearly a typo.

"y2" should be "y1".

Not so obvoius until you actually add up the "Product" column is that the "+1" should be "-1". So the Product total is now:

2x2 + 2y1 - x1 - 1

The Product total line is repeated below the table with the 2 typos already identified.

Note, the second equation under the table is correct and is properly derived from the corrected Product total that I have given.

The first and third tables in this section also are not 100% correct, as I think you need to change one line and insert an additional line in each:

In the table "For X at x2":

"[0,y2]" should be "[0,x2]"

and another line should be inserted as:

"[x2,y2] +2 +2 0 0"

Since the Product column is 0, everything else in the table is correct.

The same type of change is needed to "For X at x1" for the line "[y2,y1]" splitting it into 2 lines:

[y2,x1] -1 -1 0 0
[x1,y1] +1 +1 0 0

Once again, since the Product columns both contain 0, everything else in the table is correct.

Tommy2+2

I have this book and I'm good at math but every time I sit down and try to read it I figure I'll go play some SnGs instead. Now I lost the book in my apartment or car somewhere. Anyone else have this problem ?

Not me.

Jerrod very kindly sent me a signed copy a couple of years ago. Sadly, until know, it has taken little reading. This weekend, I will correct that. Looking forward to getting back to you with my thoughts.

Best,

Dean

I concur with this. The game theory sections are very interesting but hard going, and it is difficult to see how to apply these abstract model games to real poker, except in certain situations. I think its the last chapter of Section III that tries to apply this to play at the table, but I forget now.

I would say that it definitely opened up a more rigorous way to look at different aspects of poker. IMO just get it. If you're interested in yourself applying math to solving for optimal situations, then study the methodologies closely--otherwise skim for the conclusions.

I'm super jealous.

This book is more a math book than a poker book.
It's genuinely awesome.

How good is this book I do undestand that some people that really like math love this book. But I am more looking at improve my NLH game and do you guys think this book going to help me with that or do I better of using that time to watch videos on DC and CR?

I do get the feeling like it is a lot of thing in the book that you ae neve going to be using like how many BB deep in HU can you push with KK if BB onely calls with AA.

bump

If you're not a major poker player, then just study something like REM from Professional No Limit Holdem.

MoP is a tough read, and a lot of the concepts are hidden due to the cryptic nature of the text. Best poker book out there though, no doubt!

And when the authors are thinking of their next book it should be:

"As a result of everything we wrote in the first book here are the tips and ideas that will help you play better."

They're in the first book but it's more of a pure maths book and not an applied poker maths book, I think.

I'd enjoy reading some more focused guidance on strategy without losing a non maths guy like me in all those formulae.

The case study tells you exactly how to play your hands, if you understand what they are saying.

Just learn something like REM, range, equity, maximize. MoP will help you to learn how to balance and play unexploitably though.

what math books are good to read before taking on MoP? i haven't studied math since algebra 2 in high school (and i didn't do that great to boot), so MoP seems a little over my head atm.

i'm not looking to read something instead of MoP, just stuff slightly easier that could help me understand the book better.

go to university. then study MOP. k.o.

Hello everyone, I have a question regarding AKQ Game #3, it's a game with no limit betting and pot size of 1 unit, where the solution is s=sqrt(2)-1, also known as "the golden mean of poker", r.

I have some doubts about the calculations in this game though. On the page 152, first we must calculate player X's calling frequency with kings, called c_kings. The solution bill and jerrod arrived to is c_kings = (1-s)/(1+s).

I, however, got a slightly different solution.

We know that the total calling frequency for player X in optimal solution is 1-alpha, or 1/(1+s). We also know that player X can get A, K and Q, 1/3 of the time each.
His optimal calling frequencies are:
with Q: 0
with K: c_kings
with A: 1

so the equation should be
1/3(0+c_kings+1) = 1/(1+s), or

c_kings = (2-s)/(1+s), instead of (1-s)/(1+s).

if i understood correctly, bill and jerrod came with the same equation as me, just with the 1/2 instead of 1/3 in front of the brackets. that might be because they got rid of the queens immediately, and calculated as it were 50% chance of getting either A or K. this is wrong imo, as there is 33,3% for getting each of those two.

also, this changes the solution to the game.

when the derivative of f(s) is set equal to 0, we arrive at
s^2 + 2s - 2 = 0, instead of s^2 + 2s - 1 = 0,

which gives us the solution s=sqrt(3)-1, instead of s=r=sqrt(2)-1. in the other words, the proper amount to bet would be 0.732 of the pot, instead 0.414 of the pot, which makes more sense to me.

i would like anyone to comment on this and either confirm my doubts, or prove me wrong. thanks

I don't have the book in front of me but, if i remember correctly, we're making our opponent indifferent to bluffing. He only bluffs when he has a queen. If he has the queen then we can't have it so we're 50-50 to have an ace or king.