The Mathematics of Poker

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

I've read The Mathematics of Poker; the binding is broken from keeping it propped open too much. That being said, it was not very helpful actually building a bot. They do a lot of nice little game theory examples, but most of it is not applicable to real life game play. The push/fold tables are another story, and I'll write about that soon.

Have you checked out "The Mathematics of Poker" by Bill Chen and Jerrod Ankenman? This books does some neat game theory based analysis of poker and comes up with some surprising results. I've pondered what some sharp hacker type might do given that text and some time to grok on a bot. I think the one result most applicable in this scenario is the section with jam or fold tables based on hand and stacksize. Basically, they show that there are completely defined hand ranges when you should jam or fold when stacked at a certain number of BB at no-limit. I've pondered doing a neural network, but for limit rather than no-limit. I still may, mainly because I think working on a bunch of inputs that are hard to quantify on the fly when playing would be fun to experiment with via the neural net. Thanks for your posts on poker bots - although I hav…