Ingrid Halvorsen is a researcher in computational game theory. Her field is imperfect-information games — the class of problems poker belongs to, where each player holds private information and nobody can see the whole state of play. Her academic work dealt with equilibrium approximation in very large extensive-form games: how a game too big to solve exactly is abstracted down to something solvable, and how far the resulting strategy sits from a true equilibrium.
On this site she writes about the parts of poker that are settled mathematics rather than matters of opinion — why the hand-ranking order runs the way it does, how combinatorics produces the frequencies underneath it, what equity means precisely, and where poker's everyday vocabulary and game theory's formal vocabulary quietly disagree. Her editorial position is that most poker arguments are not arguments about mathematics at all. They are arguments about unstated assumptions, and naming the assumption usually ends them.
Halvorsen does not play poker professionally and does not present herself as a source on how to win money at it. She holds that a reference article is not advice, and she declines topics whose correct answer depends on the reader's own results — bankroll, game selection, and the like. Where a claim here rests on a calculation, she prefers to show the calculation.
