The Warren Book: I must cover my sensitive eyes

[2ndGoat]

It's widely accepted that Ken Warren's book "Winner's Guide to Texas Hold'em Poker" is trash. However, it has a section in the back on hold'em odds that, if correct, would be somewhat useful. I've been on a "research kick" lately and decided to take a look at some of these numbers. After all, even if the author had a painfully incomplete knowledge of hold'em strategy at time of writing, it doesn't mean that he is necessarily incapable of running some numbers. It certainly doesn't bode well, though. I attempted to double-check a set of calculations. Here is a set of numbers presented in a table:

Percentage chance that no one else holds:
10 Handed
An Ace 13.3%
An Ace if you do: 25.3%
An Ace if you don't: 15.6%

It just seems goofy to think that the odds of no one else having an ace would INCREASE once I pick up my hand and realize I don't have one.

Here are the numbers I computed:

10 Handed
An Ace 17.1%- (48*47*...31)/(52*51*...35)
An Ace if you do 25.3%- (47*46*...30)/(50*49*...33)
An Ace if you don't 15.6%- (46*45*...*29)/(50*49*...33)

So I agree with Mr. Warren and his arithmetic monkeys on 2 counts out of 3. Do you guys agree with me? If I'm right, it makes me sad, because I wish I could put a bit of faith in the 20 pages of the back of this book instead of having to re-crunch any useful probabilities myself.

2nd

Well.. i may be wrong here but i think it is just phrased badly. Could it mean-: chance of the other nine having an ace 13.3%. Chance of the other nine having an ace if you already have one 25.3%. Chance of the other nine hands containing an ace (not including your hand at all) 15.6%.

[BruceZ]

[ QUOTE ]
It's widely accepted that Ken Warren's book "Winner's Guide to Texas Hold'em Poker" is trash. However, it has a section in the back on hold'em odds that, if correct, would be somewhat useful. I've been on a "research kick" lately and decided to take a look at some of these numbers. After all, even if the author had a painfully incomplete knowledge of hold'em strategy at time of writing, it doesn't mean that he is necessarily incapable of running some numbers. It certainly doesn't bode well, though. I attempted to double-check a set of calculations. Here is a set of numbers presented in a table:

Percentage chance that no one else holds:
10 Handed
An Ace 13.3%
An Ace if you do: 25.3%
An Ace if you don't: 15.6%

It just seems goofy to think that the odds of no one else having an ace would INCREASE once I pick up my hand and realize I don't have one.

Here are the numbers I computed:

10 Handed
An Ace 17.1%- (48*47*...31)/(52*51*...35)
An Ace if you do 25.3%- (47*46*...30)/(50*49*...33)
An Ace if you don't 15.6%- (46*45*...*29)/(50*49*...33)

So I agree with Mr. Warren and his arithmetic monkeys on 2 counts out of 3. Do you guys agree with me? If I'm right, it makes me sad, because I wish I could put a bit of faith in the 20 pages of the back of this book instead of having to re-crunch any useful probabilities myself.

2nd

[/ QUOTE ]

13.3% is the chance that no one holds an ace, including yourself. That is C(48,20)/C(52,20).

Despite that book's poor reputation as a poker book, it contains some of the most extensive probability tables of any book I have seen. It has a table with the probability that someone else holds a better hand when you hold hands from KK down to 99 and AKo down to K9o. This table has columns labeled 8,9, and 10 players, but this should actually read 8,9, and 10 opponents or 9,10, and 11 players for the numbers to be correct. I haven't checked all of these numbers, but I've checked several of them, and all the ones that I checked are exactly correct as per the inclusion-exclusion principle (with the column name change). Many people ask for this type of probability here. You can compare the numbers with some of mine from this post (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=3446464).

Here (http://archiveserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=0&Number=2472333&page=) is a thread about another error that I verified.

My version is the 1997 2nd printing.

[2ndGoat]

Bruce,

You're so the man. Thanks.

2nd