Anyone ever read that book "supersystem"?

[Kaz The Original]

Just kidding of course... there's one part in it... in the Limit Hold'em section that makes me shivver.

Page 368. "I'm usually going to call a raise in middle position with suited hands like K-10, A-10, J-10 and 10-9".

This is wrong wrong wrong... right?

[Ionphore]

The limit section was written by Bobby Baldwin in the 70's if I remember right. Nothing in poker is wrong per say. Its really a game dependant thing I suppose. But in general when reading the supersystem these days, I think its more important to understand the concepts that are being put forth and the thought process behind them. Rather then trying to mimic the book and play in some cookie cutter way.

[Kaz The Original]

So the idea behind this was... just call, cause raising with dominated hands is a bad idea? lol... come on now.

[DeeJ]

well JT and T9 probably are too weak, but I will sometimes cold call (horror) with ATs in mid position following a raise. KTs it depends on the raiser, could be a fold or a call or a reraise /images/graemlins/smile.gif

NPA Ed Miller gives the thumbs up to AQs,AJs and KQs being cold called in this situation. So ATs isn't that far off.

[Ellis]

[ QUOTE ]
The limit section was written by Bobby Baldwin in the 70's if I remember right. Nothing in poker is wrong per say. Its really a game dependant thing I suppose. But in general when reading the supersystem these days, I think its more important to understand the concepts that are being put forth and the thought process behind them. Rather then trying to mimic the book and play in some cookie cutter way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I'm pretty sure Doyle wrote all the sections but the one on draw poker. The limit section was written with "collaboration" from Baldwin. I wasn't around back then, but apparently the game was played much differently..... /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[M2d]

[ QUOTE ]
well JT and T9 probably are too weak, but I will sometimes cold call (horror) with ATs in mid position following a raise. KTs it depends on the raiser, could be a fold or a call or a reraise

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd do just the opposite. If I were going to call a raise with any of these hands, the T9s would be my first choice. KT or AT my last.

[skipc]

it seems strange that i've seen posts here before with "players" playing worse hands than these from these positions. of course, you have to remember that when this book was written, these two guys were in the top 5% of poker players in the world, being able to outplay their opponents most of the time, thus, being able to play hands like these.

[M2d]

I'm not saying that I advocate playing these hands or worse to a raise. I just said that I'd rather play the smaler ones than the bigger ones here

[Poker_pete]

The game would have to be EXTREMELY LOOSE PASSIVE to make calling any of these hands correct. If the player in question is tight, AJs and ATs are out too.

On the other hand if there is a player or two in after the raiser then that is a different story. You have to avoid playing these hands heads up.

[Andy B]

There is, of course, a perfectly reasonable explanation for this advice. The game that they were writing about was one in which there was a single blind, equivalent to today's small blind. The first raise was actually a completion to the small bet. So when you're calling a "raise" with those suited hands, you're still getting the implied odds that they crave.

I play a certain amount of stud, and I love three-flushes, even small ones, as long as my flush cards are live. I'll call a full bet with these hands all day long. If by "cold-calling" a "raise," I had to call two bets on third street, I'd like such hands a lot less.

Like a lot of things in S/S, this was probably good advice in 1978. Not so good in 2004. S/S is still worth reading, but the only section that is really applicable to modern poker is the stud section, and 7CS4AP is still a little better.