The Science of Poker [Hardcover]

This book is a perfect example of how a mathematician with little experience or understanding of poker typically approaches the game. The result, in this case at least, is a complete train wreck.

I'm a professional poker player, a recent college grad, and the owner of about 50 poker books. I was excited but wary when I found this title recently; I've always thought there was a gap in the poker literature on this topic, approaching the game from a more rigorously analytical perspective. Many have tried, but just about all have failed miserably, and this is no exception.

The author, Mahmood N Mahmood, is originally Iraqi, and his incomprehensible writing makes it obvious that he is not a native English speaker. The book is filled with poor grammar, misused words, and awkward, unclear phrasing (at one point he calls a player's hand his 'attainment'). The back cover claims that he retired early in 1992 and became a semi-professional player, but I highly doubt that.

On the first page of the introduction, Mahmood reveals that most of his data comes from popular poker simulation software, and the rest from other poker books. I expected something original. The first title he credits as a source for statistics in this book is "'Super Systems' by Doyle Brunson". The book is 'Super System,' commonly referred to in poker circles as 'the Bible.' Tip: If you're going to try to pretend you know what you're talking about and write a book about poker, don't butcher this name. The second book he cites is "'Formula Won' by Michael J Barry". I spent some time looking but could not find any mention of this book anywhere. It does not appear to exist.

He ambitiously attempts to cover hold'em, omaha, and stud, each in pot-limit and limit forms. Apparently, Mahmood does not realize that pot-limit stud is almost never played, and no-limit hold'em is much more popular than pot-limit.

He refers to Omaha hands such as "A-K-J-T(s)" and "A-J-T-9(o)". It's common convention to describe hold'em hands as "A-Ks" or "T-9o" for suited and offsuit cards, respectively. This convention makes no sense for the four card Omaha hands.

On strategy, he states that A-K-J-T plays best against three opponents, and that A-J-T-9 is better and wants a lot of opponents. He doesn't explain why, although it's fairly obvious that he's basing it off showdown simulation results, which are meaningless for this purpose.

For hold'em, a good example of the terrible advice in this book is a discussion of "Q-7(s)", queen-seven suited. He is assuming you are in late position and that a player you somehow know has A-Ks has raised in front of you. He reasons that the hand becomes profitable and should be played if you can get at least four opponents, because it will win 21% of the time against AKs and three other random hands. This might apply if there was no more betting after the flop and the cards were just turned up, but that's not how poker is played. He also assumes that the other three players have average, random hands even though they've called a strong raise - totally unreasonable.

All of his strategies are based solely on the concept of pot odds - memorizing percentages, and comparing the size of the pot to the percentage chance of your hand winning. If it were that simple, poker would have died off from lack of interest long ago.

I just had an epiphany after writing that last paragraph. When I was first starting out in poker, I heard more experienced players calling Q-7 the "computer hand." When I asked why, they explained that there was an old book claiming the hand was profitable based on computer simulation results, when even relatively new players know that's not true - hence the mocking nickname. This must be that book. The original publishing date is 1988, apparently reprinted in 2003.

For excellent coverage of the general principles behind strong poker play, see "The Theory of Poker," by David Sklansky.

This book is somewhat difficult to read, and adds nothing to what the better poker books teach. I don't think this book will turn you into a losing player, but your money is better spent elsewhere. I sold my copy soon after buying it.

I had high hopes for this book - a highly educated author, who turned to poker about 10 years ago. The kind verdict is that it is hard to understand; the unkind verdict is that it is hopelessly and seriously wrong (in places).

I turned eagerly to the section on Hold'em. At the start of ch8 "Starting Hands", it says that "the return on investments of all the high pairs (TT or better) does not improve when more than 4 opponents are contesting the pot. High pairs, therefore, should be played against not more than 4 contestants." What on earth does he mean? You should fold AA just because 5 other guys reach the flop? Reading on does not do much to clarify. I think he means that with AA you should keep raising before the flop. But it is certainly hard to understand, particularly when two pages further on he explains that "Small pairs play best against more than 5 opponents".

I have a maths degree, so I can easily cope with odds calculations, but some of his are at best obscurely presented and sometimes seem wrong.