Brunson ? cross posted in SSNL

[pokerjoker]

So I just finished rereading Super System, and it is making mroe and more sense. Here is a passage that doesn't make sense to me though. It seems like Doyle is being supersticious.

(Talking about small suited connectors)

"Normally I wouldnt want to get more than 5% (maybe 10%) of my money involved before the flop with this type of hand. If I get as much as 20% of my money in with that hand....I'd have to be rushing. I wouldn't do it unless I was on a streak."

-is there a logical basis to this or does the WSOP champ actually beleive he has better odds of hitting his hand if he won the last hand?

The logic is if he has been hitting a lot of hands he will have a much easier time to bluff his opponents off of the flop if they both miss.

He's assuming that his streak or rush is enhancing his image at and command of the table, thus allowing him to run over his "intimidated" and now tight-weak opponents.

[speirs]

He's talking about his table image at that particular time when he is rushing.

d) All of the above.

[speirs]

[ QUOTE ]
d) All of the above.

[/ QUOTE ]
lol yes indeed I didn't read that before I posted /images/graemlins/shocked.gif

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
d) All of the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Kaeser]

Actually I don't think that's the only reason. Doyle has stated multiple times that he does believe in streaks. I believe his wording was something along the lines of "Scientists don't believe streaks exist, but I don't think one of those scientists makes more then 100 grand a year."

This does imply that he believes in streaks as more then just table image.

[sketch]

[ QUOTE ]
This does imply that he believes in streaks as more then just table image.

[/ QUOTE ]

... or that he's confused about believing in streaks rather than the effects of his table image.

The streaks are created by the player. Win a few pots in a row, you'll see that it becomes unbelievably easier to steal pots after a "streak" with rags in your hand because you've just shown the winning hand four times in a row, people begin to think you're "lucky" and that you actually do have the goods.

[phish]

Just cause he's a great poker player doesn't mean he's not prone to some superstitious irrational ideas.

[illegit]

[ QUOTE ]
Just cause he's a great poker player doesn't mean he's not prone to some superstitious irrational ideas.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and this is certainly one of them. He doesn't qualify the statement at all by talking about his ability to steal pots due to having won a few; he literally believes (or at least did at the time) in the existence of hot streaks. What's more, I don't know of many games where playing every hand gets your bets MORE respect even if you've been showing down winners.

[Kaeser]

Well Doyle has always portrayed himself as a big gambler and not just a poker player.

However I was thinking about this a lot last night and I think Doyle's got the best of it here. Doyle says that if he wins a hand he almost always plays the next hand and usually brings it in for a raise. We all know that statistically there are times when you will get the cards to win several pots in a row, and you're much more likely to get paid off if other players have seen you betting and raising the last 3 hands.

It would probably be profitable for a very good player to almost always play the next hand after a winner, but only if you were confident of your reads and your opponents. That way you would maximize your gains when get a run of winning hands and minimize your losses.

Kaeser makes some good points. To elaborate a little:

Let's say you sit down in a game with nine other players. Each of you has an even stack of 1000 chips. You win the first few hands, and run your stack to 1900 while everyone else is at 900. Now, let's say you play suited connectors and flop a straight draw or flush draw. If you move all-in and lose you'll effectively be starting over, which, as a good player, you could rely on building back up. If you win, you'll go to 2800 chips (or more), make a player either leave or rebuy, and put yourself in position to dominate the table the rest of the night. In this way, it's similar to Doyle's style of always having a big stack in a game he plays in. If you're a very good player, then always playing a hand after taking a pot can be a good strategy to go for a huge win.

[Kaeser]

Just to qualify I'm not recommending that the average player just starts playing mediocre hands after a big win in an attempt to manufacture a "streak". In fact I have no intention of using this technique at all since the games I play in do not support it.

For this to really be a valid strategy I would want a deep stack no-limit table with several predictable opponents and no real maniacs. I seriously doubt it's necessary on-line. At least not at the limits I play.

The "rush" or "streak" is not a supersticious idea of Brunson's, it has to do with how the other players are viewing you. You have to make the most of your opportunities, as they may come around seldomly, so, if you showdown three or four good hands in a row, then your opponents view of you will be conducive to a rush. You go with it as long as you can. Then you go back to playing your hands, and not the opponents perceptions.

[chok1]

doyle's meaning is literal. I've gone on many streaks. Making a lot of money. you make more money the more pots you win in a row. More people are gunning for you and more willing they become to take you out. can be costly if you dont stop in time. Doyle also mentions it took him a long time before he knew when to stop playing his streak. I practice this move, call me crazy!!!

Actually in Super/System 2 he does qualify the statement by saying it has to do with table image.

Also, there is a mathematical concept known as "regression towards the mean" that explains why sometimes good cards (or bad cards for that matter) come in "streaks". Try flipping a coin about 100 times, you will see that now and then you may get heads several times in a row, but in the end you'll be about 50/50. It works itself out in the long run.

[Dudd]

I don't think regression to the mean means what you think it means.

In the type of game Doyle is talking about, he can invest 20% of his stack because of his "streak" he can steal the pot when his opponent misses the flop. Not superstition IMO but playing based on how the opponents perceive you.
You know damn well there have been times when you were getting dealt garbage, but the others at the table had no problem believing you had the goods, so you played the terrible hands to take advantage of that. You know when to stop playing the streak, when they start playing back at you and start defending against you. It's not that complicated. You have to exploit any advantage you get, and that is one of them. When it appears to the others that nothing can go wrong for you, they back off.

[NMcNasty]

I think what he's saying is that the psychological advantage a streak would give you over your opponents (which would thus allow you to play more hands) is something that can't be scientifically tested. He certainly doesn't say anywhere that you should play more aggressively on rushes because there's a higher probability that your hand will hit.

Also keep in mind that the "streak" advice is strictly for no limit holdem. I sincerely doubt he would apply the same principle to limit where the starting hand requirements are much more important.

[ QUOTE ]
Also keep in mind that the "streak" advice is strictly for no limit holdem. I sincerely doubt he would apply the same principle to limit where the starting hand requirements are much more important.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point. Another huge part of this equation is the fact that he prefers to play shorthanded. I think one of his quotes (and I may be thinking of someone else here) is "you don't have to wory about running into the nuts every hand" refering to 5-6 handed games.