Mathematics of Poker: Fundamental Error On Pg. 112?
Posted by AF3
Posted by AF3 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.