Mathematics of Poker: Fundamental Error On Pg. 112?

Posted by

Posted by posted in Mid Stakes

Mathematics of Poker: Fundamental Error On Pg. 112?

In Mathematics of Poker, pages 111-122 introduces the idea of half-street games.  The first example, given on page 11 as The Clairvoyance Game, has the rules as follows:

One half-street

Pot Size of P bets

Limit Betting (The only bet size possible is 1 unit)

Y is clairvoyant

Y's range is drawn randomly from a distribution of {1/2 Nuts, 1/2 Air}


The optimal bluffing frequency (b) for such a game would be calculated as the frequency which makes X indifferent to calling when Y bets, therefore satisfying the equation:

<X, Call> = 0

Solving for b gives:

<X, Call> = 0 ==> (b)(P+1) + (1-b)(-1) = 0 ==> bP + b + (-1 + b) = 0 ==> bP + b + b -1 = 0

==> bP + 2b = 1  ==> b (P+2) = 1 ==>         b = 1/(P+2)


This is the same answer the Lefort presents in his video on advanced theoretical concepts.  He uses variable bet sizing X and gets the optimal bluffing frequency b to be:  b = X/(2x+P)


However, on page 112 of Mathematics of Poker, the authors claim that:

"Y, likewise, must bluff often enough to make X indifferent to calling or folding.  When calling, X loses 1 bet by calling a value bet, and gains P+1 bets by calling a bluff:  If b is the ratio of bluffs to bets, then we have:

1 = (P+1)b ==> b = 1/(P+1)


It seems that they are making an error in setting up the indifference equation.  They have forgotten to weight the amount won from calling a bluff to the frequency that the opponent is bluffing (1-b).  The equation they start with above is equivalent to:

(P+1)b - 1 = 0 


The correct answer is b = 1 /(P+2) , right?



Loading 8 Comments...

Be the first to add a comment

You must upgrade your account to leave a comment.

This thread has been locked. No further comments can be added.

Runitonce.com uses cookies to give you the best experience. Learn more about our Cookie Policy