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.