i have the book...i read it 2 chapts and i get borred of redding it...

has alot of math...but in general i think its a good book...for person with alot of poker experience

It is the best book easily imo that you can buy at a book store.
I have a feeling people that say they "read" it but didn't get much from it really mean they skimmed over it, didn't do any real work with it and being so didn't get much from it.
No one "reads" a math text, you work through a math text.

I have the 2nd printing of this book. Do later printing have fewer typos? I'm finding quite a lot. I would almost buy a new copy just to have one w/ minimal errors.

I'd say if you havent excelled in both one college algebra+ or stats+ then dont bother with this book.

I just finished reading the 2nd [0,1] game...I honestly don't feel like reading this book to0 intensely, though. nothing i havent seen used in other contexts.

BTW, is there good NLHE stuff in this book?

I'm looking for a poker mathematics book to "jump start" my mind & work on my game. I use to excel in mathematics when I was younger, but I'm having commitment issues with taking the time to wrap my head around concepts now that I'm trying to re-familiarize myself with them. I was wondering if anyone had a suggestion for a basic book. I know it will all come back to me eventually, I'm just really rusty, & perhaps brushing up with the basics is a better way to get restarted.

Maybe the book in this thread is worth a look for you?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/33...gaines-914618/

Can someone tell me what type of specific maths I would need to learn to understand this book?

If you have done basic statistics and "problems on linear equations" in high school, you can do pretty much
all the math. You know:

Alice is 5 years older than Bob.
5 years ago, she was twice Bob's age.
How old is Alice?

But the book is accessible: most of the math can be skipped, and the text explains the
conclusions.

alice is 15. do i get a pat on the back?

Not for three more years.

Thx

Hi, I just reading this book and i ve founded an equation that i dont understand clearly.
At jam or fold game (page 124, 125 i think) it tries to express y from this equation :

(x/y)*(-s)+[(y-x)/y]*(s) = -1

the next step i see: (s)*(y - 2x)/y = -1

Could someone explain me from step to step how we get this equiation from the frist one? I cant solve it from myself. Ty

looks like its just algebra, nothing fancy

(x/y)*(-s)+[(y-x)/y]*(s) = (-x/y + (y-x)/y)*s = ((-x+y-x)/y)*s = s*(y-2x)/y

its clear now. thnx a lot!

Agreed. Although I'm pretty decent at algebra, I skim-read many of the proofs yet still feel the book is of great value.

Also agreed that there are many sections that are more relevant to tournament players than cash players (e.g. the jam/fold stuff).

I'm a sucker for anything game theory related, so I can't hesitate to recommend this to fellow maths geeks. Definitely ranks in my top-5 favourite poker books.

Hi all,

I tried getting through this a couple of times years ago and didn't get too far. I'm set on absorbing it now though and plan to work on it for the next month or so. I made a PGC thread about it here http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/17...maths-1341223/ (yes, lamest challenge ever)

Ill probably need a fair amount of help. Hopefully I can get it there but I'll probably end up coming back to this thread for questions as well. Thanks

I am reading the book I have problem with the example 13.1-AKQ Game #1
The ex-showdown matrix in the book is
|Y | A |K | Q |
X | |Bet|Check|Bet|Check|Bet|Check |
A |Call | | |-1 |0 |-1 |0 |
|Fold | | |+2 |0 |+2 |0 |
K |Call |+1 | 0 | | |-1 |0 |
|Fold | 0 | 0 | | |+2 |0 |
Q |Call |+1 | 0 |+1 |0 | | |
|Fold | 0 | 0 | 0 |0 | | |

In my opinion the matrix should be


|Y | A |K | Q |
X | |Bet|Check|Bet|Check|Bet|Check |
A |Call | | |-1 |0 |-1 |0 |
|Fold | | |+2 |0 |+2 |0 |
K |Call |+3 | 0 | | |-1 |0 |
|Fold |+2 | 0 | | |+2 |0 |
Q |Call |+3 | 0 |+3 |0 | | |
|Fold | +2| 0 | +2|0 | | |


because the pot size is of 2 units and the bet is limited to a 1 unit. Who can help me?

"Ex-showdown equity" means "the value that changes hands based on the betting." So it's kind of like comparing to "check-check." When Y has an ace and X a king and it goes bet-call, only the bet changes hands as a result of hte betting, because Y is winning the pot no matter what. Hence it's +1, not +3. Other cells that differ are similar.

I don't understand the concept, but now I have one more doubt. Why using ex-showdown instead of showdown matrix?

Ex-showdown equities often make it easier to compare two actions to each other; equations have fewer terms, "check-check" is always zero, etc.

You can of course get the correct answers with showdown equities. You will just have more 'p' terms floating around.

In the page 133 we are comparing the equities with calling with AKs against AA, ATs or A5s.

I think the first calculation is wrong because it says that you have 3/1225 change of holding AKs when attacker has AA,

but this isnt right,

when there are only two aces left, defender can have only 2 combos of AKs,

50*49=2450 combos possible total

so 2/2450=1/1225 change of holding AKs

If that is wrong, then the jamming percents 100% AA, 87,73% ATs and 100% A5s calculated based on that are also wrong

???

Those 3/1225s are the probability that the attacker will hold the hand in the first column given that he holds AKs, not the probability that he will hold AKs given that the attacker holds the hand in the first column. I agree that this could be clearer.

Also if you are going to do combo math, either use combinations:

Two ways to make AKs out of 50C2 = 50*49/2 = 2/1225
or permutations:

Four ways to make AKs: (AhKh KhAh AdKd KdAd) out of 50P2 = 50*49 = 4/2450 = 2/1225

but you can't mix them.

at page 173, there is:

X, then, has the following equity from betting t when he holds an ace and Y holds a king:

<A vs K, bet t >=(t)(2/(1+t)-1)=(t-t^2)/(t+1)

and for Y, the fraction of all calling hands that are king is 1/(1+t)-1/2.


So the probability that Y calls is the with king is that 1/(1+t)-1/2 and

probability that he doesnt call with king is 1/2-[1/(1+t)-1/2]

and when he calls, X win t+1, and when he doesnt, X wins 1.


So, the equity would be:

(1+t)*[1/(1+t)-1/2]+1*[1/2-[1/(1+t)-1/2]]


but this isnt the same as in the book.

OK so far.

Wait no. Assume t < 1. Then Y is going to call with some hands. He needs to call with enough hands (total) when X has a queen to make X indifferent to bluffing. That amount is (1/(1+t)).

So first he will call with all his aces, which is half his hands (when X has a queen). So he has to call with enough kings to make up the difference, which is (1/(1+t)) - (1/2).

But he only has a king half the time. So when he has a king, the probability he will call should be (1/(1+t)) - (1/2) divided by (1/2), or 2/(t+1)-1, as in the text. And since we are dealing with ex-showdown equity here, the pot that he is entitled to in any event is removed; so his profit from the betting when Y calls is just t.

why the probability that he calls with king isnt calculated by:

P(Y has a king)*P(he calls with it)=1/2*(1/(1+t)-1/2)=1/2(1+t)-1/4

?