Just started reading Super/System...Brunson's view on rushes startling

[Stefan Prodan]

In the no-limit section of Super/System, Brunson says that he believe rushes exist and that if you get a great hand you should automatically play your next. He says that he's made a great deal of money off rushes, and that even though scientists don't believe they exist, he does.

I don't understand where he's coming from at all. Is he actually saying that by getting a good hand you have a higher chance of getting a good hand on the next? That makes no sense at all. You might get some psychological benefits, but I think we all know that this isn't blackjack, and the cards you get in one hand have absolutely no effect on the cards you get in the next hand.

So am I reading this wrong or does Doyle completely ignore probability here?

[Aceshigh7]

Perhaps getting a great hand and winning a nice pot will ever so slightly be likely to alter your opponents play on the next hand, put them back on their heels so to speak. In this case it may be beneficial to play the next hand strongly.

[Stefan Prodan]

Well, I know and you know that your previous hand has nothing to do with your next hand. However, if we're going to go off logical fallacies here, it seems to me that the most common logical error made by people is the "law of averages" fallacy which would assume that after winning 3 hands in a row you're "due" for a loser.

I had this happen to me once in real life where I caught a set on one hand then a flush on the next. Realizing that my opponent would probably think I was trying to scare him on the next hand when I managed to somehow catch a set again, I went all-in. Exactly as I expected, he said "Nobody's that lucky" and pushed all his chips in with me.

That's what I expect most people would do, not back away from you. Maybe I'm wrong about this.

[chief444]

[ QUOTE ]
That's what I expect most people would do, not back away from you. Maybe I'm wrong about this.


[/ QUOTE ]
I would tend to agree. So that being said, maybe Doyle has a good point in saying you should play the rushes. If I felt someone would call an all-in bet for sure if I happened to catch a strong hand I would probably play anything. Your implied odds would be enormous.

That being said, I think Doyle does actually believe in the luck factor. But he is one of the best NL players ever and a lot of the other advice in the book is definitely worth reading. Plus his stories are very entertaining.

[Stefan Prodan]

Yes, but this is hailed as the absolute bible of NL hold-em, so I find it odd that something that so blatantly spits in the face of mathematics is included in it.

To quote:

"After I've won a pot in No-Limit..I'm in the next pot -- regardless of what two cards I pick up. And if I win that one...I'm always in the next one. I keep playing every pot until I lose one. And, in all those pots, I gamble more than I normally would."

I just don't see how this is good advice, I guess.

[BugsBunny]

A lot of poker players *do* believe in rushes so from a table image standpoint playing this way makes some sense. Keep pushing till you're played back at, and lose. If you win, especially with mediocre cards, the image of being on a rush will actually be magnified.

Of course it helps if you have a good table image to start with and people respect your play (something that I think Doyle doesn't have a problem with).

Perception is often more important than reality, and if people perceive you as being on a rush and play accordingly then you should take advantage of it. Rushes do happen. The problem is you can't identify them till after the fact.

[chim17]

You said why it's good advice.

If you catch something, they likely won't believe you and your implied odds are huge.

[Lunamondo]

Most money does come from rushes, that's true. About the other part of the view he has taken a mystical view about.

There are other similar views also, e.g. one could say that if one has been losing/winning much one will 99% sure start to win/lose much, and this is so that the stats will become true. One could think that it's not only math but magic also; math just explains the laws.

[T0asty]

I think what you are all failing to see here is that at the time of writing Doyle was at the top of his game!

In almost all the games he played he knew the players and had played against them before. When on a rush he could put his opponents on a hand and simply bluff them out of a pot. i.e. if he knew someone had QQ and the flop had an ace. He was also known as an action man and everyone knew that he wouldn't hesitate to push in his chips.

He goes on to mention a huge amount of hands he won in a row. He probably only had the best hand in 20% of them but managed to push everyone out wihtout a SD.

He's also not telling you to do this yourself, he is talking about his own experiance. He doesn't have a disclaimer when talking about rags saying "play any two cards if you won the last pot".

Hope this helps . . .

[cassise]

In order to understand Doyle's claim, you need to understand his whole "system." Doyle does not play by the "starting hand guide" that so many players treat as the bible today. Doyle plays hands that many pro's would not even think of playing, and he does not hesitate to gamble.

The idea of playing the pot after you win a pot is simple. You want a reputation as an "action" player. As many hold'em players have learned from bad beats, even a fairly weak hand has some chance to win. The idea is that since you just won a pot, you want to give the players action so that when you get another good hand you will get action.

The whole concept of Doyle's system can be broken down into two ideas, 1. Win lots of small pots by playing agressivly and use those small pots to play a big pot even if you dont have the best hand, and 2. Give action for smaller sums of money so that when you have a good hand people will bet back at you.

By playing the next hand after you win, you get a reputation as "agressive." Then, when you do pull poker aces after you just won a hand, players will think "he is just playing the hand because its his view on poker" and will reraise you, then you can raise back and get lots of money in the pot with the best hand.

Its all part of his theory. Since people will bet back at him when he is raising a lot of pots in a row, he will make the most money on rushes since people will eventually play back into a "made" hand.

[SDA004]

I believe he is contrasting his view against the common view of that time. He believes that you should play the hand after you win, while most believed you should throw away the hand no matter what.

Even though he may play any hand regardless of what they are, I think he wants you to take away from it that you shouldn't expect to lose after you have just won a pot, and in some cases winning a pot can actually help you take down the next pot.