Full Version: The Mathmatics Of Poker By Bill Chen
Ouch.
When in Atlantis I cracked it open on the beach. I quickly realized that it was not beach reading, then I got mad when he said you only need 5 sng buy ins in your br if that's what you play. Mainly because thats the most moronic thing i've ever read.
Did anyone actually read the book? If so, is it worth working through?
Did anyone actually read the book? If so, is it worth working through?
The book is fantastic, but you need to be a math geek to get the most out of it. I have a degree in maths and stats, and I found some of it difficult to get through (analysing pages and pages of equations and tables can get tiresome for anyone).
It isn't a strategy book by any means. It is a book that allows you to understand the game at a deeper level.
I don't remember this. It's pretty moronic and not like the rest of the book at all if true.
It isn't a strategy book by any means. It is a book that allows you to understand the game at a deeper level.
QUOTE(Kid DynOmite @ Thursday, July 12th, 2007, 9:39 AM) 
then I got mad when he said you only need 5 sng buy ins in your br if that's what you play.
I don't remember this. It's pretty moronic and not like the rest of the book at all if true.
QUOTE(simo_8ball @ Thursday, July 12th, 2007, 4:29 AM)
The book is fantastic, but you need to be a math geek to get the most out of it. I have a degree in maths and stats, and I found some of it difficult to get through (analysing pages and pages of equations and tables can get tiresome for anyone).
It isn't a strategy book by any means. It is a book that allows you to understand the game at a deeper level.
I don't remember this. It's pretty moronic and not like the rest of the book at all if true.
It isn't a strategy book by any means. It is a book that allows you to understand the game at a deeper level.
I don't remember this. It's pretty moronic and not like the rest of the book at all if true.
Cool, thanks Simo.
Out of curiosity, what sort of mathematics would I need to learn to understand the book?
QUOTE(Kid DynOmite @ Thursday, July 12th, 2007, 7:03 AM)
Cool, thanks Simo.
Out of curiosity, what sort of mathematics would I need to learn to understand the book?
Out of curiosity, what sort of mathematics would I need to learn to understand the book?
It looked like stats and prob to me.. which meant... greek.
It's not complex mathematics, it's just somewhat tedious really. You can go through two pages of proofs before you get to a preliminary result, which then then use to prove something else.
They go through the basics in the first couple of chapters. You need to be comfortable understanding equations (manipulation, substitution, etc), and a little bit of calculus (differentiation and integration).
For the most part, they go through simple 'toy games' to try and find out things about poker in general.
For example the AKQ heads up game, where the deck consists of just three cards with one dealt to each player, and player A can bet or check, and player B can then check, fold or call depending on A's action. High card wins.
They show that player A should bet the ace every time, check the king every time and bet the queen a certain % of the time.
Because B will never call a bet with the queen, there is no value in betting the king (B calls with the ace and folds the queen).
If A never bets the queen, then B can fold the king every time there is a bet.
A needs to bluff the queen a certain amount of the time to ensure that either B will pay him off some of the time, or B will get bluffed too often.
It's a simple way of showing that in poker you should bet all of your best hands for value, and only bluff with your worst hands. You should not value bet a hand that cannot win when called, nor bluff with a hand that will only fold out hands it is beating.
They go through the basics in the first couple of chapters. You need to be comfortable understanding equations (manipulation, substitution, etc), and a little bit of calculus (differentiation and integration).
For the most part, they go through simple 'toy games' to try and find out things about poker in general.
For example the AKQ heads up game, where the deck consists of just three cards with one dealt to each player, and player A can bet or check, and player B can then check, fold or call depending on A's action. High card wins.
They show that player A should bet the ace every time, check the king every time and bet the queen a certain % of the time.
Because B will never call a bet with the queen, there is no value in betting the king (B calls with the ace and folds the queen).
If A never bets the queen, then B can fold the king every time there is a bet.
A needs to bluff the queen a certain amount of the time to ensure that either B will pay him off some of the time, or B will get bluffed too often.
It's a simple way of showing that in poker you should bet all of your best hands for value, and only bluff with your worst hands. You should not value bet a hand that cannot win when called, nor bluff with a hand that will only fold out hands it is beating.
QUOTE(simo_8ball @ Thursday, July 12th, 2007, 12:46 PM)
It's not complex mathematics, it's just somewhat tedious really. You can go through two pages of proofs before you get to a preliminary result, which then then use to prove something else.
They go through the basics in the first couple of chapters. You need to be comfortable understanding equations (manipulation, substitution, etc), and a little bit of calculus (differentiation and integration).
For the most part, they go through simple 'toy games' to try and find out things about poker in general.
For example the AKQ heads up game, where the deck consists of just three cards with one dealt to each player, and player A can bet or check, and player B can then check, fold or call depending on A's action. High card wins.
They show that player A should bet the ace every time, check the king every time and bet the queen a certain % of the time.
Because B will never call a bet with the queen, there is no value in betting the king (B calls with the ace and folds the queen).
If A never bets the queen, then B can fold the king every time there is a bet.
A needs to bluff the queen a certain amount of the time to ensure that either B will pay him off some of the time, or B will get bluffed too often.
It's a simple way of showing that in poker you should bet all of your best hands for value, and only bluff with your worst hands. You should not value bet a hand that cannot win when called, nor bluff with a hand that will only fold out hands it is beating.
They go through the basics in the first couple of chapters. You need to be comfortable understanding equations (manipulation, substitution, etc), and a little bit of calculus (differentiation and integration).
For the most part, they go through simple 'toy games' to try and find out things about poker in general.
For example the AKQ heads up game, where the deck consists of just three cards with one dealt to each player, and player A can bet or check, and player B can then check, fold or call depending on A's action. High card wins.
They show that player A should bet the ace every time, check the king every time and bet the queen a certain % of the time.
Because B will never call a bet with the queen, there is no value in betting the king (B calls with the ace and folds the queen).
If A never bets the queen, then B can fold the king every time there is a bet.
A needs to bluff the queen a certain amount of the time to ensure that either B will pay him off some of the time, or B will get bluffed too often.
It's a simple way of showing that in poker you should bet all of your best hands for value, and only bluff with your worst hands. You should not value bet a hand that cannot win when called, nor bluff with a hand that will only fold out hands it is beating.
Is it sad that I actually still remember how to do about 95% of the Calculus I learned in college?
QUOTE(simo_8ball @ Thursday, July 12th, 2007, 1:46 PM)
For example the AKQ heads up game, where the deck consists of just three cards with one dealt to each player, and player A can bet or check, and player B can then check, fold or call depending on A's action. High card wins.
I have to admit I'm finding this part pretty tedious.
It reminds me a lot of a Saturday Night Live skit about a guy with a system for remembering facts. Here's a very loose paraphrase.
Interviewer: So, Mr. Jones, I understand you have an amazing memory system.
Jones: Yes, sir. It's foolproof.
Interviewer: How does it work?
Jones: Well, I meet someone and his name is Dale Wood. I visualize the chipmunk from the cartoon holding a 2x4.
Interview: Wow, amazing. What if you meet someone named David Nicoson?
Jones: Well, suppose his name was really Jay Axebreaker. I would imagine a blue jay; and he's breaking an ax with a karate chop.
My point being, I think they spend a lot of time discussing toy games not so much because it's really useful, but because it's easier than poker.
It's not something that the average American can read. If they are able to read it they might fall asleep in the process.
I saw this book at a bookstore and skimmed through it and immediately put it back. That stuff just looked waaaaay to complex and over my head. If anything it'd probably just confuse me. I'm ok at math, but I don't think it would be of much use to me.
I will most likely give it a look, but I think it's going to be a book that I will have to sit down with a legal pad and calculator to fully understand
The book is on the way. It should be here soon.
Proofs? Integration? Sounds like fun to me. I'll see if I can pick it up cheap from Amazon or something.
QUOTE(LongLiveYorke @ Thursday, July 19th, 2007, 7:43 PM)
Proofs? Integration? Sounds like fun to me. I'll see if I can pick it up cheap from Amazon or something.
Jeez, I would've bet my bankroll you bought one the second it came off the press!!
QUOTE(LongLiveYorke @ Thursday, July 19th, 2007, 6:43 PM)
Proofs? Integration? Sounds like fun to me. I'll see if I can pick it up cheap from Amazon or something.
I was thinking the same thing. I just didn't say it. I'm a Civil Engineer so I studied a lot of math in college and I actually enjoyed most of it. Although, I could have done without LaPlace Transforms and Wronskians. (sp?)
QUOTE(aadams_22 @ Friday, July 20th, 2007, 10:35 PM)
Although, I could have done without LaPlace Transforms and Wronskians. (sp?)
Never really dealt with LaPlace too much, but did a 5 week course a few months ago involving a lot of work with Wronskians. It wasn't my favourite course.
QUOTE(simo_8ball @ Saturday, July 21st, 2007, 7:37 AM)
Never really dealt with LaPlace too much, but did a 5 week course a few months ago involving a lot of work with Wronskians. It wasn't my favourite course.
they're easy, but very tedious
btw, I got the book in the mail today
Ive had this book sicne it first came out, but never spent the full time reading it...I am plannin to force myself to sit back and read this stuff every night to really get in the poker mindset again.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.