Super System Revisited #1

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Everyone,
Some years ago I had an original hardbound copy of Doyle Brunson et. al. Super System.

Gave it away as a Christmas present to one "Nikki" who used to play at the Mirage... If anyone knows where she's at, ask here to give my folks a call in Palm Beach Co. Florida to find me... she has the number. Would love to hear out of her.

Anyways, back to Super System... found the paper back copy for 29.95 in a local bookstore this weekend. Bought it and read the Limit Hold'em section.

Brunson, and I guess Baldwin seem to reccomend tossing flush and straight draws against a pair on board, almost always.

Does everyone here agree? If so, can you show why logically or mathematically?

Also, what are the exceptions?

Sincerely,
AA

[Pringle]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr />
Brunson, and I guess Baldwin seem to reccomend tossing flush and straight draws against a pair on board, almost always.

Does everyone here agree? If so, can you show why logically or mathematically?

Also, what are the exceptions?


[/ QUOTE ]

Doyle meant to say that you should be more likely to throw those hands away, because there are no absolutes in poker.

All of the following apply to moderately tight games (like 10-20 and up). I don't think loose games really existed when Doyle was writing about holdem, especially considering there was only one (small) blind.

The problem with straight/flush draws on paired boards is that, not only are you possibly drawing dead, but you are less likely to get paid off if you hit. The same is true for drawing to straights on a suited board. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't do it, of course, just that you need slightly better effective odds. But if you're in a pot with some dope that routinely calls down with any pair, then by all means draw away.

Also, as S&amp;M say in HPFAP, it depends on what exactly the board is, and how likely it is that people are playing those cards. I think they use the example flops of 8-8-5 and J-J-10. With 8-8-5, you would be more likely to continue, because decent players don't play many hands with 8s and 5s. But liberally muck draws when the board is J-J-10, because people play a lot of hands with Jacks and Tens, so you not only might be outdrawn later even when you make your hand, you might be drawing dead.

Pringle

P.S. I too just got my paperback Super System, and I'm loving it!

[Robk]

Hey AA, don't forget that you can bet your draw as a semibluff! Calling and folding aren't the
only options.

[mike l.]

rather than see anyone post ever again about this pointless completely outdated book everyone just go throw your copy in the trash and forget about it.

thanks,
mike l.

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Pringle,
Yes, I find Super System a good read. Some time ago I lived in Vegas for a couple of years. Had a rather larger poker collection. Actually I glutted on the stuff. Had everything from Roy West's 42 lessons, to things like Fox's "Quit Poker Sleep 'till noon Play Poker".

I tried poker with nothing but one of those cheapie "Play Winning Poker" guides you see in the Vegas gift shops one night after winning some at 21... after 14 hours of 1-5 stud I was only down about $50. So I said, "This is the way to go."

As luck would have it, Don Bond, a local accountant and student of Rich Grieder told me about Pearcy's "7-Card Stud, the Waiting Game" and Gambler's Book Club...

Well, I tend to buy a lot of books... so suffice to say, I ended up with lots of 'em.

Gave all of them away as gifts near the end of my stay in Vegas. I think having too many points of view that early in my playing caused me a lot of concept overload. There were definitly times when I felt it was all BS and that the "pros" were holding something out. Or that the books were the real money maker for David and Mason (probably are... but even so... if the info's good... who cares?)

Now years later, wish I had all those books back! Slowly re-acquiring them! I guess it takes some time at the tables to begin to be able to follow the books. Particulary 2+2 books as they seem to be written for the initiated. I find other authors easier to read. Though perhaps, there's more concepts per line of text in 2+2 books than most other places.

Sincerely,
AA

[cepstrum]

tear out the stud section and read it every night before you go to bed. it remains excellent and is a must read for anyone who plays stud regularly or aspires to be more than a hold 'em specialist.

which should be all of us.

cepstrum

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Robk,
Well, if the pot's big enough, anything short of drawing dead is an ok bet to make!

But, Doyle seemed rather strong in his stipulation against chasing a pair on board.

I'm hoping one of the odds wizards out there could give some analysis of what "good enough pot odds are/aren't".

Sincerely,
Frank

[AmericanAirlines]

But Gee Mike I... The local hero is a co-author!

;-)

Sincerely,
AA

P.S. Why such a bad feeling about this book?

[Dynasty]

I believe the advice is tainted by the change in hold'em's structure since SuperSystem was written.

Today, in a 10-20 game, there are two blinds of $5 and $10 and it costs $10 to limp pre-flop.

Wasn't the typical structure back then a single $5 blind and it cost $5 to limp pre-flop? If I'm right, then the size of the pot is much smaller in this structure.

[AmericanAirlines]

Hi Dynasty,
Definitely the blind structure has changed. Can't remember the book's stated structure at the minute, don't have it right here with me.

Sincerely,
AA

[AmericanAirlines]

Definitely will do that. I started as a stud player. One night while cruising the Mirage and Bellagio on a Wednesday night (during my "wannabe a pro" days) I had no stud games at my limits... but HE was going strong...

So I begrudgedly realized I was going to have to learn a community card game!

I've always been more comfortable with stud. I can use the extra board cards and read hands better in that game. Also, the fact that it's slower gives me a little think time.

I thought Pearcy's book, Roy West's Book and 7CSFAP, made a pretty good place to start. Super System definitely has some interesting info too. When I read it "way back when" I recall internalizing a few tidbits.

Sincerely,
AA

Sincerely,
AA

[mojolang]

I remember reading a bit about it, but I didn't think the structure was that diff. I thought it was the same except antes. I did notice Baldwin played some rought unsuited conncetors 9To, etc. As for the stud, it's still good and I've heard that the no limit section is still the standard reference. All in all only the draw, and split are the only completely obsolete games.

Here is somehting from kimberg's webpage


Limit Holdem Bobby Baldwin 65pp
Very good stuff, but S/M is better.
No-Limit Ho. Doyle Brunson 97pp
Doyle is the acknowledged expert in this game. However, if his style
(super agressive with the intent of dominating the table) doesn't suit
you, the specific advice might not do you much good.

Mike I, don't be an idiot.

Joe

[Mike Gallo]

Wasn't the typical structure back then a single $5 blind and it cost $5 to limp pre-flop? If I'm right, then the size of the pot is much smaller in this structure.

You made a correct statement. In a $10-$20 game, only one player posted a $5 blind. The next person to act could call 5, or raise to 10.

Mason discussed this in Poker Essays III

[bumaloting]

I just recently purchased this great published work of art, and was not quite following what you had written' so I thought I'd ask,what are you refferring to,

"Limit Holdem Bobby Baldwin 65pp
Very good stuff, but S/M is better.
No-Limit Ho. Doyle Brunson 97pp
Doyle is the acknowledged expert in this game. However, if his style
(super agressive with the intent of dominating the table) doesn't suit
you, the specific advice might not do you much good."

I don't understand...