SuperSystem's discussion regarding rushes.

[arabie]

Doyle Brunson write:
"I know the scientists don't believe in rushes, but they make about 1500 a month, i've played poker for almost 25 years now, and i've made millions at it. A big part of my winnigs came from playing my rushes. There's only one world class poker player that i know of who doesn't believe in rushes (perhaps Sklansky???), well he's wrong... and so are the scientists. If you want to take money off, i mean make a big score, you've gotta play your rushes, its that simple."

Umm.. i'm confused? unless he is playing the rushes based on the probability of them occuring in different patterns and so forth, this seems like a pretty stupid comment. In the long run, shouldn't this philosophy eat his money because of a lack of any mathemetical justification? For a guy who plays most of his game on a foundationally mathematical structure, i wouldn't expect the sort of advice. I also find it interesting that he says that all the other world class playrs concede to this view. I feel like i must be clearly wrong?

[reubenf]

My take on it is that it's an old book, he's wrong, he may or may not know it by now, and he's good enough to make plenty of money without being right in this case.

[arabie]

it wasn't like mathematics were absent in those times. Half the book is discussing the fundamentals of poker mathematics as a guid to success. This also includes Caro's probability input that is beyond the necessary probability for holdem. Why would he argue the facts presented before him and tell everyone else they are wrong. Even if Doyle didn;t see the light, i can't concieve that all the top poker players back then could've ignored this clear dilemma and concluded on the mathematical end.

[A_C_Slater]

I think Doyle goes on to state that if he wins a huge
pot he will play the next hand he is dealt regardless
of the cards he gets dealt, unless it's raised in
front of him.

I think he does this for image reasons, creating a
loose gambling action image so he can get paid off
later.

He's declared that after writing that book, that he's
had to change the way he plays now as well.

[Robk]

if you define rushing as "getting several good hands in a short period of time" then of course rushes exist.

it's false that getting a good hand makes it more likely that your hands in the near future will be good. i don't think doyle believes this.

it's true that getting a good hand makes it more likely that your hands in the near future will get action. in other words, getting good hands increases your implied odds on hands in the near future. this implies that, as doyle suggests, you should give up more equity than you normally could preflop to see 3 cards. i think doyle believes this but he did a poor job of putting the concept into print.

[mmbt0ne]

I think it's important to note that Doyle plays NL almost exclusively. This means that he can increase his chances of winning a pot much more with by using table image and bet size. And besides, it doesn't matter if he is on a rush, only if the other players at the table think he is, and play their hands like they've already lost to a guy just getting lucky right now. Doyle could be playing absolute rags, but if the table thinks he's on a run, most will just get out of his way when he bets.

[Penetrater]

At the time SS was written, I think you'd be a long way off in saying that Doyle played primarily on a fundamentally mathematical basis, especially with reference to No Limit.

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
I think he does this for image reasons, creating a
loose gambling action image so he can get paid off
later.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be why it worked well for him, but the book strongly implies that he did it because he believed in rushes.

[Sandstone]

He also mentions something about ESP.

Doyle obviously has some superstitious beliefs that don't jive with reality. Lots of gamblers do. Fortunately for him, they don't seem to hurt his game.

[knucklehead]

His comment has to do with game theory. You can extend a rush by picking the right time to bluff. Say you get 2 decent hands in a row, then you get a marginal hand and just happen to get a decent read on an opponent in that hand, and you take a third hand in a row, then you bluff the 4th and everyone folds, then you pick up another decent hand and nail someone good. It looks like consecutive hands when it's not!!!!!

So now you've picked up a bunch of chips, you attack the small stacks with check-raises, when you have nothing, and they fold to you because your so LUCKY THAT YOUR GETTING ALL THE CARDS...

This is probably more about psychology than probability.

[reubenf]

[ QUOTE ]
His comment has to do with game theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, see:

[ QUOTE ]
This is probably more about psychology than probability.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
In the long run, shouldn't this philosophy eat his money because of a lack of any mathemetical justification? For a guy who plays most of his game on a foundationally mathematical structure, i wouldn't expect the sort of advice. I also find it interesting that he says that all the other world class playrs concede to this view. I feel like i must be clearly wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Even Sklansky, as much of a math-nerd as he is, will tell you not to play every hand by the book. You should change it up and make some "incorrect" plays to keep your opponents guessing. I would assume then, that Brunson believes a good time to fudge the math is after you've caught a good run of cards (while your opponents are still licking their wounds).

[arabie]

I don't believe that is what he meant, because he did not even slightly address the issue from that perspective. He did not mention table image once, he simply said that he was in debates over the validity of mathematics with scientists. I, also, don't necessarily believe everyones going to fold just because you took down the last two or three hands. This may increase your chances with table image, but you can easily get trapped (espeacially if you continue using that tactic). I'm sure there is a way of playing rushes mathematically, but that seems like pretty complex math to do at the poker table. Table image can be decent explanation, but I highly doubt this is what Doyle meant, otherwise he would've just said it.

[arabie]

That is incorrect. Sklansky promotes seemingly incorrect small math decisions that increase your overall EV, thereby, making the original decsion a correct one. Once again, I highly doubt Doyle meant that anyways. He does discuss table image and changing up your play in other areas of the book. This section is specifically tryign to justify the superstition of rushes and Doyle makes this clear by comparing his ideas to those of a scientis. He then clearly states the Sceintist is wrong and all other poker players concede to this.

[EarlCat]

[ QUOTE ]
That is incorrect. Sklansky promotes seemingly incorrect small math decisions that increase your overall EV, thereby, making the original decsion a correct one.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's why I, in my original statement, put "incorrect" in quotes.

[A_C_Slater]

And you're forgetting that scientists make less money than
him in a year.

That's what it's all about money, money, money, money.

Reason is a lie. There is a factor that is infinite and unknown.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
And you're forgetting that scientists make less money than
him in a year.

That's what it's all about money, money, money, money.

Reason is a lie. There is a factor that is infinite and unknown.

[/ QUOTE ]

Infinite and Unknown. Right...

[Khern]

I don't know too much, and I haven't read all the posts in this thread, but...

To me, "rush" can only refer to people's tendancy to make mistakes due to emotional responses when one player continually wins pots/money. You want to exaggerate the winnings that comes from getting a series of good cards, by getting people to play incorrectly against you. Sometimes this involves making suboptimal plays in the proccess. But then, you also, frequently, must make suboptimal plays against thinking players to prevent them from playing optimally against you.

-John

[VoxGibson]

If i remember my SS book accordingly, Doyle says after winning a big pot he plays the next hand "within reason"
therefor i think if his next hand sucks he's not playing it, and hes not forcing any hand thats not in good shape on the flop either.

Now assuming the swing is currently in his favor, and he catches great cards or medium hands that work out great for him, fine... that could be considered a rush... even though a coin flip is fiftey fiftey, flip it enough times and it will come out heads five times in a row at some point, that could be considered a rush.

now profiting from a lucky streak, doyle previously says he gets action because he gives action, so if i guy like him is catching a rush of good cards, he will make a ton of money....

does a rush exist, only based on perspective and interpritation....

but to say a rush exists as an entity in itself its absurd, but to say someone cant get on a streak and profit from it because thats its not mathmatically accurate is just as absurd

just my opinion, let me hang for it....

[BonJoviJones]

Wow, a lot of people are going pretty far to defend that statement. The best you could say about that statement is that it's misleading.

Just because he's Doyle doesn't mean you can't disagree with him.

[arabie]

I don't think you understood my point... Firstly, if you are labelling streaks in a sample size as rushes then what is the name for bad streaks, anti-rushes? If you see a bad hand, are you supposed to be more likely to fold the next hand? This is cleary mathematically absurd, at least from a profitable persepctive. Back to my point, Doyle is clearly advocating the "absurd" type of rush based on his writings. To paraphrase, Doyle is basically saying, don't tust the mathematics on this one because the poker gods have your back.

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, a lot of people are going pretty far to defend that statement. The best you could say about that statement is that it's misleading.

Just because he's Doyle doesn't mean you can't disagree with him.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're wrong math boy. This is not about reasoning or logic, it's about worshipping elaborate pretensions. This is the most EV+ move in all of history. Just look at the Queen of England.

[mtdoak]

I think Rushes have more to do with how players play against players who are on a roll. When a player has just gotten 3 or 4 big pots in a row on seeming miracle cards, do you play different against him?

[A_C_Slater]

[ QUOTE ]
I think Rushes have more to do with how players play against players who are on a roll. When a player has just gotten 3 or 4 big pots in a row on seeming miracle cards, do you play different against him?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. But the hacks do. Hence the importance of the unquantifyable "pretense" factor.