Missleading error in "Mathematical Concepts for No-Limit Holdem (1) - EV & Ranges" strat post

• Bronze
Joined: 04.06.2011
I was a little surprised to find this error, and I tripple checked myself just to make sure, but there seems to be an error in calculation in the Math strat post. This is incredibly misleading for those who are trying hard enough as it is to catch on with topic at hand.

3/4 way down the page when the first tree diagram is being explained, Hasenbraten makes a mistake when working out the EV.

He states that '0.5 • 0+0.33 • 1+0.16 • 0.16 • 3+0.16 • 0.83 • 2 = 0.5 • 0+0.33 • 1+0.16 • (0.16 • 3+0.83 • 2) = 0.694.' when infact it equals 0.6724

I've worked this out several times and also had a second opinion on it. We both came to 0.6724 after double checking each time.

• 5 replies
• Bronze
Joined: 08.03.2008
did you double check?
• Bronze
Joined: 04.06.2011
trollling? Yeah I doubled check. It would be pretty embarrassing if I was wrong. but after handing it over for a second opinion and after getting the same answer, I think I'm right.
• Bronze
Joined: 07.05.2008
Originally posted by Reaching4Zen

3+0.16 • 0.83 • 2 =/= (0.16 • 3+0.83 • 2)
It's not the same
3.16*0.83 =/= .16*3.83
2.6228 =/= 0.6128
• Bronze
Joined: 27.01.2008
Isn't:

3+0.16 x 0.83 x 2 = 3 + (0.16 x 0.83 x 2) = 3.2656 ?

Unless it's meant:

(3+0.16) x 0.83 x 2
• Bronze
Joined: 17.04.2011
I think PS should use parantheses more when it comes to mathematical formula. Just to make it obvious what it means.
Also it be more nice if it use computer symbols so we could just copy & paste to a shell like python or wolfram alpha maybe just to make sure that it has the correct calculation.

I agree with Reaching4Zen I find this misleading too.

0.5 • 0+0.33 • 1+0.16 • 0.16 • 3+0.16 • 0.83 • 2

0.5 • 0+0.33 • 1+0.16 • (0.16 • 3+0.83 • 2)

As you can see both shows 0.6724 WolframAlpha.