Mathematics of Poker errata/corrigenda
This book at once thrills and infuriates me. It thrills me in that it is the book I wish I had written myself. It infuriates me in that the little niggling errors—typographic and logical—drive me to distraction as I read it. This thread is to focus on the logical errors; if you have found any that I have not, feel free to add them. It would be nice to have everything in a single place to point people at. (If I am mistaken in any of my corrigenda, please correct me too.) Because this would be massively long if I posted all the corrigenda at once, I've split them up into separate replies in this thread.
1. Ch. 11, Ex. 11.3, [0,1] Game #2, p. 118, para. 1
MoP: "...Y could unilaterally improve his equity by checking hands from x_1 [sic] to y_1 and instead bluffing an equal amount of hands near 1. By doing this, he improves the equity of those bluffs because X will more often fold the winning hand against those bluffs..."
While it is true that this strategy change improves Y's equity, the reason is wrong: his bluffs are still worth the same in equity, i.e., $0$. What improves is the equity of his checked hands; the hands near $1$ lose to a larger range of X's hands than the hands just above $x_1^*$.
1 Reply
11. Ch. 20, Ex. 20.3, pp. 251–3.
This example needs an edit to keep the numbers consistent. At the start on p. 251, the book says, "For the sake of simplicity, assume that the flush hits 20% of the time and the weak draw hits 4% of the time (these events are independent ...", and then on p. 252 para. 7, it says, "We'll assume that the set is made with a flush draw 1/4 of the time." This contradicts the events being independent! (This decision appears to have been made partway through calcul
Regarding the equasion on p. 253, the authors are trying to do here what they did on page 250, which is to make Y indifferent to calling on the turn with a weak draw or folding. So they are setting the equity of [C/B/B] (using 6/7 for xn) equal to the equity of [F//]. It seems they forgot the minus sign on the right side of the equasion (it should be -16/100), but the next equasion is in fact correct.
