Book: The mathematics of Poker

I am just wondering if anyone has read this book.

I have been working on my game, reading strategy stuff - many sources, books, articles etc. - watching a lot of vids, consulting a coach, trying to learn how to do proper and constructive review (still a very weak spot with me).

I was a losing player. Now over the last 700+ games (STT and MTT) I am dead break even. (I have brought my ROI up on 2 sites from - 35 to -10, and -19 to +1, so the trend has been better, but now my graph is going due east...)

So I am spotting a lot of leaks, but have now gotten the book mentioned in the title by Bill Chen and Jerrod Ankenman, and was just wanting to know in advance what anyones take on it may be. I will read it in anya case.

In my research, I come across all kinds of thoughts that what worked even a couple of years ago, is now no longer valid, be it SnG strategy or whatever. So any "new" tips, books and so on that anyone may have opinions on............

I have this book and I have never read it all, its pretty hardcore and at this time in my poker playing all it was doing was :S me. I remember reading about other books that are not as heavy as that one but I forget what they where so I will try dig up the place I was reading about it.

Honestly, I felt like the book was a great introduction to game theory applied to a game that I enjoy. It'll get you thinking in a game theoretic mindset. But overall if was fairly basic and drawn out (which incidentally is a standard thing for a solid low level mathematics text). If you have a decent background in prob/stat and/or game theory, you can probably skim the text fairly quickly and pick up everything that you wanted to know from it.

Im liking it so far. Its a lot of math basics in the first few chapters, but section 2 starts to get more into utilizing it in game situations. (Only just started section 2)

Its definitely not a "light" read, unless algebra is something you do to pass the time when you are bored in between chemistry experiments....

well it definitely is worth a try although I did like power texas holdem form negreanu and some other ones...

Funny, I asked Negreanu about Bill Chens book.
He said he had tried to read it, but it was too heavy for him, so he never finnished.

I have the book in my hand, but havent read it.

He sounds like he sure dont want people thinking as deep as this book will induce a player to think..... cause I cant believe it is too heavy for him, since it is not too heavy for me, and I am in NO way a math heavy weight.

Unless he bought the lead cover copy.............

Yes, well, Daniel Negreanus strong side isnt exactly theoretical mathematics.

idk.. haven't read the book but have read reviews on it.
I think time spent on HH review.. ie. using PokerStove would be more useful,.. that & hand reading (putting villain's on ranges in particular spots, etc.)

I am in part 3 now.

I am not sure about your "more useful" PO, even tho if you substitute "incredibly" for "more" then I certainly agree.

But I think it is worth a read, (for me anyway) simply because it has caused me to re think a few points about how I play. Funnily enough, very opponent range based. There is some interesting parts about using knowledge you have on your opponents combined with your cards and the board and different ways to use this. Also some interesting takes on "reads" and how they are often misused in decision making.

I am only just starting the 3rd part, but I dont feel it is a waste of time in any respect, but is math heavy which makes it very dry-textbook like at times, as well as being hard for anyone who gets confused at multiple fraction math problems.

Im not that great a fan of this book.

It presents fairly basic ideas in possibly the most complex ways possible.

It provides a pretty good introduction to GTO poker, but does so without really touching on any poker.. so chances are if you dont already have a good understanding of GTO you wont have one after finishing the book.

It appeals to mathsy people because it has a lot of equations in it and the temptation is to think "Im good at maths, should just be a mater of getting my head around a few equations" but the reality is it often uses a lot of maths to explain concepts that are better explained in words.

ITs a good book in the sense that it explains things form a different perspective than most others, but you wont really learn much from it. Its more of a case of reaffirming what you already knew.

I've never read it - nor really intend too based on a few reasons. The books I've read in my opinion, like the theory of poker, harringtons etc has enough math based knowledge in them for poker. I don't think a book which I assume is based purely on mathematics of poker is any good these days anyway. I think it more comes down to to play and the "feel" if it's a profitable call or not not what the odds say. If you have a understanding of outs and basic odds in poker than in my opinion this is enough.

Interesting takes, but to make assumptions on a title (Ram) is, while perhaps normal, a good recipe to form an opinion which may have nothing to do with the object in question. Math is good to understand in poker, and while the basics are necessary, more advanced concepts are used by many players, so "enough" is going to be a variable term.

However, so far I think there is a lot to what Stu and PO said. I am enjoying it, and since I have read quite a few books so far - not an enormous amount but among others HOH series, SnG Strategy, Kill Phil, Super series, PTS 1+2, WPT one hand at a time, Poker Tournament theory for advances players, Elements of Poker (Great read), Ace on the river, Theory of poker blöah blah (yep, a few more as well). And some of these multiple times. There are some I named which I can take or leave, although all had something in there that made me glad I took the time. If I am made to look at any part of my game in a way I had not previously done, even if it is just to determine "Nah, that dont fly for me", then I think it is time not wasted. I have read a few books where I felt cheated out of my time. Now I can usually tell soon if I want to get past the first chapter or not. I sadly bought a bunch of books in my beginnings that are just recycled ideas you get in all books. But its all part of the learning process.

Anyway, there are some incredibly basic ideas presented in an incredibly complicated manor, but some quite advanced ways of thinking presented in an easy to digest fashion ("easy" being flexible here, but not rocket science by any means). The equations are a feast for math geeks, and if you skip the fractions and "P< A/B if X2*1/2Y balh blah", and get on to what the meaning is, there is a lot of decent stuff.

I guess I am just in a wordy way saying I agree to Stus last sentence. I like to find new ways of looking at old concepts, if it means I know even one tiny bit more than before, and if it means I can approach something in a new way, even if I only discard the approach.

The old no stone unturned thing I guess.......

"If you have a understanding of outs and basic odds in poker than in my opinion this is enough"

To be competitive with the better players (MTT/SNG)... this ^ statement is not even close to being accurate. Not by a gazillion miles (but hopefully many think this way).

Nosebleed stakes player sauce123 thinks this is the best poker book yet written fwiw.

Just before I read this thread I happened to order Matthew Hilger's
Texas Hold'em Odds and Probabilities. It was super cheap on ebay, and from what I could tell it was the "lighter" read for this novice player who doesn't have lost a wealth of math skills ... yet. Anyone know if it's worth it compared to the Chen book?