NLHE in Super System 1: what doesn't work anymore?

[burningyen]

Apparently it is taken as a given that the original Super System is out of date. I'd like to know where exactly it falls short for today's NLHE games, and whether the criticism applies equally to high stakes and small stakes games.

[luckycharms]

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently it is taken as a given that the original Super System is out of date. I'd like to know where exactly it falls short for today's NLHE games, and whether the criticism applies equally to high stakes and small stakes games.

[/ QUOTE ]

It applies exclusively to high stakes, tight games. This is because of the overuse of the semi-bluff, and the bluff is an essential part of the semi-bluff. That being said, it's about 100X easier to bluff a tight, good player. Amateurs will call you down, destroying half your equity.

Doesn't seem too outdated to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's been outdated. Same blind structure is around now. People might give you a bit more action, but it's still the best strategy

[patrick dicaprio]

the limit section and the razz section are outdated I believe, because of the blinds and the qualifier, respectively.

Pat

[dogmeat]

Super/System is still a terrific read. Games types and popularity have changed quite a bit since 1978. Five-card draw and lowball were the only games available (legally) in California at the time of printing. These games are not nearly as popular now.

The Hi-low split section is out-dated because casinos don't offer a hi-low declare game, and 7-stud and Omaha are now played with an 8 or lower qualifier for the low end.

The limit Hold'em games now are mainly (imho) different now in the aggressiveness of players. You can't skate-around anymore and pick-up pots because it gets too expensive. People understand how to bet from the CO and button more, and (some) players have learned you can't play junk up front.

No-limit has changed quite a bit from 25-years ago also. Although Doyle was the first to put into print the idea of playing suited-connectors and small pairs the way he does/did, other good players were already doing this also. Doyle (Brunson, Stu, Appleman, Tompko and others) was also known for being very aggressive and really using his chips to muscle people. You are going to get a lot more callers when you try that more than a few times now.

Also in NL, the game has changed from the past when most of the action (betting) happened on the flop. Today, players love to get their cash in before the flop. This is a hugh difference.

Super/System - still a great read!

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[Evan]

This is not true of all games, but your implied odds suck if you're playing in Party's NL games because of teh short stacked max buyins relative to the blinds. This severely devalues small pairs and suited connectors.

[johnsy]

i think you just get a cross section of doyles style........he basically tends to be loose-agressive.....it works for him.........hes also a great reader of people......there are many styles..whatever works for u is best

[Superfluous Man]

Actually, I think the games Doyle describes have antes and blinds. With more money in the pot to start, one can make a lot more profit taking down small pot after small pot uncontested.

[adios]

What you state is THE big difference. The games Doyle wrote about the players stacks were very deep compared to the blinds. Therefore players could stand a raise with the pairs and suited connectors often.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi dogmeat:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
The limit Hold'em games now are mainly (imho) different now in the aggressiveness of players. You can't skate-around anymore and pick-up pots because it gets too expensive. People understand how to bet from the CO and button more, and (some) players have learned you can't play junk up front.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. The change in structure led to much larger pots which in turn produced the effects that you mention.

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
No-limit has changed quite a bit from 25-years ago also. Although Doyle was the first to put into print the idea of playing suited-connectors and small pairs the way he does/did, other good players were already doing this also. Doyle (Brunson, Stu, Appleman, Tompko and others) was also known for being very aggressive and really using his chips to muscle people. You are going to get a lot more callers when you try that more than a few times now.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. You're confusing no limit hold 'em tournaments where because of the escalating blind and ante structure play like this becomes correct and no limit cash games. In a cash game, players will typically have 50 to 100 times (or more) the big blind on the table. This makes conservative play very profitable against those players who want to be super aggressive with questionable hands.

(As an example, Ray Zee has posted on these forums that Stu Unger was a favorite to lose whenever he played in a cash game. But we all know that in a no limit tournament he was a terror.)

In a tournament, especially after the early stages, where the ratio of stak to big blind starts to become small for most players, the more aggressive player now begins to have the advantage over the tight conservative player.

By the way, for practical purposes, there weren't any no limit games for many years. It wasn't until the recent poker shows that we see a resurgence of no limit cash games.

Best wishes,
mason

[Nick_Foxx]

[ QUOTE ]
Although Doyle was the first to put into print the idea of playing suited-connectors

[/ QUOTE ]

this is not true at all - read amarillo slim's hold'em section in "play poker to win" , 1973

mike

[turnipmonster]

for what my opinion is worth I think that super/system's NL section is great and the lion's share of criticism it receives is from people who don't understand the concepts presented or apply his general betting philosophy while ignoring his specific recommendations for playing hands. people that think doyle recommends a wantonly aggressive style either haven't read or do not understand the chapter. his advice is in many cases very cautious.

--turnipmonster

[bdk3clash]

Did you happen to catch Doyle's AQ hand on the Fox poker tournament thingy? He had AQo in EMP and raised, Johnn Chan had AA and was shortstacked and just called, flop came Q-high, Doyle bet about 1/2 Chan's stack, Chan pushed, Doyle called. The look on his face was priceless.

[dogmeat]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi dogmeat:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
The limit Hold'em games now are mainly (imho) different now in the aggressiveness of players. You can't skate-around anymore and pick-up pots because it gets too expensive. People understand how to bet from the CO and button more, and (some) players have learned you can't play junk up front.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. The change in structure led to much larger pots which in turn produced the effects that you mention.

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
No-limit has changed quite a bit from 25-years ago also. Although Doyle was the first to put into print the idea of playing suited-connectors and small pairs the way he does/did, other good players were already doing this also. Doyle (Brunson, Stu, Appleman, Tompko and others) was also known for being very aggressive and really using his chips to muscle people. You are going to get a lot more callers when you try that more than a few times now.


[/ QUOTE ]

No. You're confusing no limit hold 'em tournaments where because of the escalating blind and ante structure play like this becomes correct and no limit cash games. In a cash game, players will typically have 50 to 100 times (or more) the big blind on the table. This makes conservative play very profitable against those players who want to be super aggressive with questionable hands.

(As an example, Ray Zee has posted on these forums that Stu Unger was a favorite to lose whenever he played in a cash game. But we all know that in a no limit tournament he was a terror.)

In a tournament, especially after the early stages, where the ratio of stak to big blind starts to become small for most players, the more aggressive player now begins to have the advantage over the tight conservative player.

By the way, for practical purposes, there weren't any no limit games for many years. It wasn't until the recent poker shows that we see a resurgence of no limit cash games.

Best wishes,
mason

[/ QUOTE ]

Mason,

I don't understand what the point is that you are making here with regard to NL play. My contention is that players are more aggressive and much less likely to allow a player to continue to muscle the game. They will not allow a player to raise every time on the button or in the co, and they don't fold to the first bet on the flop everytime. You seem to say that conservative players are allowing this to happen, but then make their money on the few times they actually make a hand - which would mean there is no change at all in NL other than the tendency to bet more before the flop. I disagree, but will admit this is based on internet play and low buy-in Vegas games ($500 or less).

Dogmeat /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi dogmeat:

If you are in games where people are playing like this, and I agree that's the case in many games, by playing conservatively you almost can't lose. That's because in no limit you only need to win one big hand.

best wishes,
Mason