Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
Two Plus Two Publishing LLC
 

Go Back   Two Plus Two Poker Forums > >

Notices

Books and Publications Discussion and reviews of books, videos, and magazines.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-13-2021, 07:35 PM   #1
Kingkong352
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 320
Play optimal poker

Hi, the book have interesting ideas for toy games but they are not solved. Are the solutions in the the book number 2 ?
Kingkong352 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-13-2021, 08:14 PM   #2
Kingkong352
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 320
Re: Play optimal poker

I think the author he tries to make the problems simple by explaining into words but the problem is you can not make things more simple than it is.

Honestly I'm very angry I bought this book. It's like, complex toy games, but explained using words, as if to make it simpler. That might be a good thing for the people who should not have bought the book in the first place.

But for the people who bought the book with the idea to get into the toy games, you can not make things more simple than they are without losing the essence.

I would just like to see how the toy games are calculated so I can understand. I mean yeah I will ask questions in the forums, hire a coach if I have to. But if you will sell a book you should not be so lazy and solve your own math problems.
Kingkong352 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2021, 08:24 AM   #3
Foucault
Philosopher of Poker
 
Foucault's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Blogging strategy and book reviews
Posts: 4,710
Re: Play optimal poker

Hello Kingkong. This is Andrew Brokos, the author of the book. Thanks for checking it out, and I'm sorry you were disappointed. To be honest, though, I'm not sure which toy games you're referring to that I did not solve. Could you provide an example?

Also, if you'd like to DM me your Venmo or Paypal info, I will refund you the cost of the book.
Foucault is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2021, 11:30 AM   #4
heehaww
Pooh-Bah
 
heehaww's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Tacooos!!!!
Posts: 4,942
Re: Play optimal poker

@kingkong, is your complaint that he showed the computer's answer but didn't show the 10 pages of math needed to derive it? Do you think seeing those calculations would improve your poker game?

If you're interested in how a solver gets the answer, read Noam Brown's thesis. If you wanna improve at poker, it's more valuable to understand (in words) the conceptual reasons behind the solutions and the broader conclusions that can be extrapolated from them. The POP books are great imo, two of the best poker books written.
heehaww is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2021, 08:46 PM   #5
Al Mirpuri
Pooh-Bah
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Narnia
Posts: 5,429
Re: Play optimal poker

Quote:
Originally Posted by Foucault View Post
Hello Kingkong. This is Andrew Brokos, the author of the book. Thanks for checking it out, and I'm sorry you were disappointed. To be honest, though, I'm not sure which toy games you're referring to that I did not solve. Could you provide an example?

Also, if you'd like to DM me your Venmo or Paypal info, I will refund you the cost of the book.
This is astonishingly generous especially as under consumer law the poster would have no remedy as extracts of he book were openly available and the poster would have had some idea of what he was buying.

Sir, you are a class act.
Al Mirpuri is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2021, 09:57 PM   #6
avatar77
adept
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 1,122
Re: Play optimal poker

I actually like the book. One tip though for those who are going to buy the paperback - there is a normal print and a LARGE print. I didn't realize this and accidentally purchased the large print which is in a bit of inconvenience.. so ensure you pick the proper print you want instead of clicking too quickly and taking the default choice.
avatar77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-18-2021, 06:58 PM   #7
Kingkong352
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 320
Re: Play optimal poker

Hi,

In the chapter about complex ranges, there is no way to really know why the equilibrium is the way it is.

Like I said, it is explained using words, but I think this makes it more simple than what is required to understand clearly.

I meditated for a while on this toy game and I can see that when I use the equilibrium you give it is better than if instinctively I tried to solve it.

But still the answers to 'why Opal can bet a J' and 'why Ivan can bet a T', at the end of the day the real answer is because that's what is written in the equilibrium.

But if I look into the words to understand, for example why can Opal can bet a J, then I can see the EV of betting a J is easy because I understand why Ivan calls 2/3. But how can I compare it with Ivan's betting range I can not really know, because I have no way to understand how thin will Ivan bet.

I understand Ivan will bet a T because Opal checks enough strong hands to make it possible. But I don't understand why Opal checks so many strong hands and what happens if she don't.

But I tried to test the equilibrium that you give and I see that if Ivan plays at equilibrium, checking the strong hands for Opal has same EV as bet, but I guess if she checks it too much then Ivan won't bet T, or not even J if she checks it all, so then the EV of check would go down with strong hands, but a little up with T but proportionally less. But I stopped on that page for more than one week.

So with the same idea I still don't really know Opal overfolding vs a bet. I understand the theory why, that if IP has more value bets, and can have more bluffs, and 6 is a +EV check and it is used for bluff, so to make 6 indifferent Opal overfolds. But I don't understand how to find the exact frequency by myself but only by using the equilibrium that you give I can know.

I understand that Opal can bluff with a 5 or a 6 because a 6 never win at showdown, but I have no way of knowing by myself how many bluffs really she should have (or value bets...), I just take the equilibrium that you give.

I find this very annoying because of course I try to compare with the first toy game. I tought it's very interesting that Opal can check or bet the A vs K,Q as she wants and it doesn't change EV. Then at first I tought ''oh so interesting, so when OOP in river spot it's the same EV anyways....'' So of course when I see the toy game in complex ranges I'm thinking like... ''wait... what is the difference here... '' but I can not figure it out if I can't calculate it.

I really appreciate your offer to refund the book. But I don't think this is fair. I still got value from this book and it got me thinking and occupy my mind for a while, and it was not very expensive. But I found it frustrating to not be able to solve the toy game.

Thank you for replying to me
Kingkong352 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2021, 02:15 PM   #8
Kingkong352
journeyman
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 320
Re: Play optimal poker

And today I keep reading the exploitative part of the same toy game, and it is still a bit more of the same thing. I stopped question myself because it's never ending. For example in the part 'What if Ivan call only if he has a Q' and I see that then a T is a bluff and can not check-call. I just think 'alright if you say so...'' because I'm not really sure I guess it gets checked down more often too. But I don't really know... Well I guess it would get checked down more often... but I'm not sure how often... but if you say it's true it must be true...
Kingkong352 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2021, 02:30 PM   #9
Foucault
Philosopher of Poker
 
Foucault's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Blogging strategy and book reviews
Posts: 4,710
Re: Play optimal poker

Thank you for elaborating, I see what you mean now. I can see how it's frustrating not to see the mathematical derivations of these solutions, but this is what it's like to work with a solver. There's a lot more about this in POP 2, but essentially, we have work backwards from the solution. The game of poker is much too complicated to calculate equilibrium solutions for early street play mathematically. We require computer assistance to find the solutions. Then we study the solutions to extract heuristics and principles that we can apply in real time in lieu of actually solving the game on the fly.

You're right that the more complicated toy games in the book are still tractable by hand. I think many more readers would be turned off by that than be interested it, but if you're really interested in seeing how they're solved, you can find derivations for the solutions to similar (and more complicated) games in The Mathematics of Poker.

Thanks again,
Andrew
Foucault is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2021, 10:42 PM   #10
LSD
enthusiast
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 97
Re: Play optimal poker

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kingkong352 View Post
And today I keep reading the exploitative part of the same toy game, and it is still a bit more of the same thing. I stopped question myself because it's never ending. For example in the part 'What if Ivan call only if he has a Q' and I see that then a T is a bluff and can not check-call. I just think 'alright if you say so...'' because I'm not really sure I guess it gets checked down more often too. But I don't really know... Well I guess it would get checked down more often... but I'm not sure how often... but if you say it's true it must be true...
What Andrew did with the "Play Optimal Poker" series is to simplify the complex works of authors like Bill Chen and Will Tipton, which is no small feat. In fact, having read and thoroughly enjoyed both volumes of Play Optimal Poker, they have clearly become the preeminent books for any player looking to learn the foundations of GTO.
LSD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-31-2021, 06:33 PM   #11
heehaww
Pooh-Bah
 
heehaww's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Tacooos!!!!
Posts: 4,942
Re: Play optimal poker

My only criticisms are tiny:

Paperback volume 1, page 94:
Quote:
though it will be smaller than when only he could bet.
Andrew threw that in to make sure the reader was paying attention, but it's wrong because Ivan's EV doesn't change. Given the answer to #3, one doesn't need math to deduce this: if it's (co)optimal for Opal to check her whole range, then of course being forced to check wouldn't decrease her EV.

Page 91 typo: "is now 1/2 instead of 1/3" (bolded should be 2/3)

Cheers
heehaww is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply
      

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2008-2020, Two Plus Two Interactive