Check out our brand new Local Poker Communities! Get updates and interact with poker players in your area.
Visit the United States Poker Community | Visit the California Poker Community | Read more about the Launch of P5s Local

Poker Math

Reply to Thread
  1. Jhoenig Jhoenig is offline

    Posts: 5
    Joined: May 09

    Jun 19th, 2009 (6/19/2009 2:49pm)

    If anyone knows any good resources for learning the mathmatics involved with no limit holdem i would greatly appreciate it.
  2. POTYH POTYH is offline

    TX
    United States

    Posts: 143
    Joined: Jun 09

    Jun 19th, 2009 (6/19/2009 3:25pm) in reply to Jhoenig

     
    Originally Posted by Jhoenig View Post

    If anyone knows any good resources for learning the mathmatics involved with no limit holdem i would greatly appreciate it.

    "Math is idiotic" Barry Greenstein HSP Season 5

    Poker champion, Barry Greenstein has accepted a challenge from fellow poker players who have agreed to donate funds to Children, Incorporated if he utters the words math is idiotic during the televised tournament.
  3. lawg1 lawg1 is offline

    Posts: 129
    Joined: May 08

    Jun 19th, 2009 (6/19/2009 3:46pm) in reply to POTYH

    My main complaint about poker math -- and I've got the basics of it down -- is that it assumes each hand is an independent event. Which it isn't. Definitely live it isn't.
  4. TC_Clueless TC_Clueless is offline

    Columbia, MO
    United States

    Posts: 945
    Joined: Jan 07

    Jun 19th, 2009 (6/19/2009 3:54pm) in reply to Jhoenig

    William Chen has a PhD from Berkeley and wrote The Mathematics of Poker which is probably exactly what you're looking for.
     
  5. TC_Clueless TC_Clueless is offline

    Columbia, MO
    United States

    Posts: 945
    Joined: Jan 07

    Jun 19th, 2009 (6/19/2009 3:56pm) in reply to lawg1

     
    Originally Posted by lawg1 View Post

    My main complaint about poker math -- and I've got the basics of it down -- is that it assumes each hand is an independent event. Which it isn't. Definitely live it isn't.

    So you mean to say that the outcome of one hand is somehow related to the outcome of previous hands? Unless you're talking about the effectiveness of shuffle techniques I don't see how you can take this view.
     
  6. lawg1 lawg1 is offline

    Posts: 129
    Joined: May 08

    Jun 19th, 2009 (6/19/2009 4:04pm) in reply to TC_Clueless

     
    Originally Posted by TC_Clueless View Post

     
    Originally Posted by lawg1 View Post

    My main complaint about poker math -- and I've got the basics of it down -- is that it assumes each hand is an independent event. Which it isn't. Definitely live it isn't.

    So you mean to say that the outcome of one hand is somehow related to the outcome of previous hands? Unless you're talking about the effectiveness of shuffle techniques I don't see how you can take this view.

    Of course not. And in the sense that they are TECHNICALLY independent events in a purely mathematical sense, I agree with you.

    But the only reason we pay attention to the math is to tell us how to play as we move forward in a hand (and to predict how our opponents will play given the range we put them on).

    So, the only utility to knowing the math is to affect your play in subsequent action within a particular hand. But, since not everyone plays perfect mathematically, you obviously use their tendencies to also inform your decision.

    My point is that no one (especially in live play) uses pure math to decide what to do. Putting aside "luck," or "sensing that my card is coming," you are going to temper the mathematics with a sense of how your opponent is likely to play in reaction to you.

    Indeed, one of the best tools you have to maximize profit is figuring out how to maximize your opponent's mathematical errors, which in turn almost always causes you to play differently than the math would tell you to play.

    Might have been better if, instead of saying they are not independent, I said that subsequent decisions in hands are not in a vacuum.
  7. moman1965 moman1965 is offline

    Katy, TX
    United States

    Posts: 2,765
    Joined: Oct 06

    Jun 19th, 2009 (6/19/2009 4:08pm) in reply to Jhoenig

    To give you a straight answer here, search a lot of the articles by jennifear. The basis of her teaching is ICM and the math of holdem.
  8. chstone chstone is offline

    State College, PA
    United States

    Posts: 493
    Joined: Apr 07

    Jun 19th, 2009 (6/19/2009 5:25pm) in reply to lawg1

     
    Originally Posted by lawg1 View Post


    My point is that no one (especially in live play) uses pure math to decide what to do. Putting aside "luck," or "sensing that my card is coming," you are going to temper the mathematics with a sense of how your opponent is likely to play in reaction to you.

    Indeed, one of the best tools you have to maximize profit is figuring out how to maximize your opponent's mathematical errors, which in turn almost always causes you to play differently than the math would tell you to play.

    Might have been better if, instead of saying they are not independent, I said that subsequent decisions in hands are not in a vacuum.

    You sure about that??

    It seems like you are trying to say that you shouldn't only pay attention to the math. Well, sure, you should also pay attention to your opponent's betting patterns, hand ranges, etc. But when you do that and make a different decision "than the math would tell you to play" all you really did was change variables in the original math and come up with a different answer.
  9. MYBLUEDOG MYBLUEDOG is offline

    Greenville, MS
    United States

    Posts: 1,999
    Joined: May 07

    Jun 19th, 2009 (6/19/2009 7:57pm) in reply to Jhoenig

    This should get you started. You can go to an online bookstore and find many books on the math of poker/probability.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability_(Texas_hold_%27em)
Reply to Thread

Similar Threads