Math and Poker

[Tuneman100]

I was watching the World Series of Poker or something, and I heard a couple people say that to be a great poker player, you have to be a "great mathematician". I don't understand. In terms of the extent of math in poker, doesn't it stop when trying to find the pot odds, and the probability of making a hand (# of outs/number of cards). Is there more math in poker than this?

[twankerr]

not really. now do those calculations facing a raise of almost 3/4th your stack and thousands of dollars on the line. only the quickest minds will be able to focus.

[Boopotts]

That great mathematician stuff is just total garbage. All you have to be is better than the guys you're playing against-- which usually isn't too tough. Just watch the WSOP, and see how many greivous errors the top players make.

[GuyOnTilt]

Hey Potts,

You're wrong. Math/Logic is a huge part of taking your game to the next level. And I'm not referring to pot odds and odds of making a draw.

GoT

[Chris Daddy Cool]

this is grossly oversimplifying it.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
I was watching the World Series of Poker or something, and I heard a couple people say that to be a great poker player, you have to be a "great mathematician".

[/ QUOTE ]
Most people don't know the difference between mathematics and grade-school arithmetic. Most mathematicians are not walking calculators.

You do not need to be a mathematician, or to be good at mental arithmetic, to play poker well. You need to count the size of the pot, count the number of outs you have, count the other players in the hand, count the number of hands your opponent could have that beat you, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
In terms of the extent of math in poker, doesn't it stop when trying to find the pot odds, and the probability of making a hand (# of outs/number of cards). Is there more math in poker than this?

[/ QUOTE ]
There is a lot more math and quantitative analysis than this, but
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] You don't have to do it at the table.
[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] You can let other people do the math and summarize the results in words. You can then buy their books from 2+2.

There are some serious gaps in the literature, particularly for NL. I hope the book by Harrington and Robertie fixes this.

[fnord_too]

I'll throw my response in the ring.

First, as someone pointed out, "great mathemetician" is not the right term. Great mathemeticians are people like Galois, Abel, and Gauss. I could fill the page with them, but the point is, it is incorrect to label someone who can perform calculations quickly as a great mathemetician (though they may be, but not just because they can calculate accurately on the fly).

What the original speaker (probably) meant was that there is a great amount of logic and mathematics that applies to the situations that arise in poker, and that to be a consistent winning player at the highest levels one needs to be able to bring logical and mathematical analyis to bear on these situations, and that these analyses need to be performed quickly and accurately.

The actual math involved in the game is not very daunting. If you are comftorable with probability and statistics (especially things like decision trees and other methods of decision making under uncertainty) you have all the tools you need. The tricky part is applying them correctly in the heat of play.

There are other, non mathematical skills that help too. Classifying your opponents quickly and accurately is extremely important, and that has little to do with math. Knowing the meaning of the various betting patterns your opponents use is also important, but again, this has little to do with math. (Sure, in either of the above you could argue that statistics give you your insight and sample size gives you your confidence, but who really does that sort of statistical analysis in their head at a live game?)

At any rate, I would say that great poker players understand the math and logic behind the situations they have encountered. Further, I would say that most if not all great poker players spend a lot of time away from the table analyzing specific situations. I think that you need to do this to build up your intuition for when you are faced with novel situations at the table and don't have time to work through the situation completely. (As an aside, the idea of building up intuition is not at odds with being a mathematical or logical player. When you study physics, there is a strong emphasis on building up your "physical intuition", same with developing "mathematic intuition" in math. This is probably a better topic for the psychology forum though.)

[Frank A. Adrian]

I think you have to be adequate in arithmetic, with enough knowledge about probability and stats to understand the game and compute basic odds, but a *great* mathematician? Probably not. Just because you know the latest in eliptic curve theory doesn't mean you know squat about poker, nor does success in poker mean you know anything about doing a proof. Being good at math might mean you are a logical thinker, but so would being good at just about anything. I don't think there's a correlation other than that grad students are likely to be lured into games and get hooked and math students *do* tend to spend a lot of time in grad school [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img].

[mrjetguy]

As I think some have already touched on, having good reasoning/logic skills is the true key to being good at poker. With enough practice almost any person of average intelligence can handle pot odds and outs.

[uuDevil]

[ QUOTE ]
There are some serious gaps in the literature, particularly for NL. I hope the book by Harrington and Robertie fixes this.


[/ QUOTE ]

Can you elaborate a little? What are these mathematical gaps? For that matter, what does the structure the gaps are in look like?