Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

I can still fold if he comes over the top, but he is constantly being put to the decision of whether to get all his chips in the pot.

This very sentence was exemplified in Rounders.

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

[ QUOTE ]

"I'd say over 50% of the time ... when all the money goes in, I've got the worst hand. Obviously, I couldn't overcome that unless I had something to compensate for it. And my compensation is all those small pots I've picked up."

"I've got that pot paid for with all the small pots I've picked up. And when I play the big pot ... it's a freeroll."

Reminds me of the gambler who was "playing with the casinos money" after a few wins ... then loses it all due to negative expectation wages.

[/ QUOTE ]
It shouldn't remind you of that. He is talking about steamrolling people who are weak. Suppose you are playing a very weak player heads-up, and on every hand you raise all-in to about 30 BB preflop. Your opponent is so weak that he will only call with AA when you overbet like that. When you are called, you will be far behind. However, you more than make up for that by stealing the blinds 220 times for every time you get called, and when you get caught by AA, you still win some of the time.

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

as someone else smarter than i am said, it really is a shame you dont post more...

peace

john nickle

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

[ QUOTE ]
The part about playing any hand after winning one is dumb, of course.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's dumb. Doyle is a big believer in streaks. More importantly, he knows that many players (maybe most players) also believe in streaks. Whether or not they really exist is irrelevant. What matters is Doyle just took down a huge pot and now he's in it again. Is he on a roll? Are you brave enough to find out? I bet he grabs more than a few small pots just from being in the hand after a big win.

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

[ QUOTE ]
"I'd say over 50% of the time ... when all the money goes in, I've got the worst hand. Obviously, I couldn't overcome that unless I had something to compensate for it. And my compensation is all those small pots I've picked up."


[/ QUOTE ]

...and remember, it's doyle who's doing the pushing. the fold equity he gets by going allin makes it an even EV move at worst. it's when he gets CALLED that he's got the worst hand over 50% of the time, and if he only gets called 50% of the time...

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

He's got an over-all strategy, something lacking from modern texts. In this case he wants the opponents to know that when he's in a pot he's willing to push in all his chips. This fact causes most opponents to abandon small pots since they don't want to play a huge pot with their modest, even if currently 'best', holding. Wouldn't you prefer playing Kings-with-a-Queen against someone unlikely to make a big bet with a lesser hand? Well, you are not alone.

So his willingness to invest a lot of chips as the likely underdog helps him win lots and lots of small pots. And, he claims, this makes ..err.. made him an overall winner.

And I'm sure the following happens a lot: the tight player calls with Kings-with-a-Queen on the flop and maybe the turn, but cannot call a really big bet on the end. That's ChaChing for the aggressive player.

Its nothing like the blackjack player 'playing on casino money' since those are independant events: betting $1000 on one hand does NOT help him win the next $50 bet.

Playing the rush, I suppose, is just part of the psycological strategy he employs. I don't think much of it, but if he's a pretty big favorite to win that pot by virtue of being aggressive, then what the heck.

- Louie

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Not to mention that it's probably +EV for Doyle to WRITE that he is going in to these pots with the worse hand over 50% of the time regardless of what he is ATCUALLY doing.

If I am playing NL, I want my opponents to be suspicious of every bet I make. And everything I do or write is going to be geared toward making that happen as long as it doesn't cost too much.

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Hi Louie:

That only makes sense as long as the tight player has a big stack. Most tight players will play with a relatively small stack against overly aggressive type players. Now the problem that you allude to almost never happens.

Also, most no limit games today are played with a maximum buy-in. Now the situation that Doyle talks about can't happen very much anyway.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Hi TStoneMBD:

I don't think your Gus Hansen analogy is accurate. He's playing a tournament and he's making many of these plays when the stack size is not very large when compared to the blinds. But he also knows that his opponents are trying to protect their stacks.

When Harrington on Hold 'em: Volume II comes out Dan will be talking a lot about what he calls Inflection Point Theory. This will address many of these spots and why these type of plays can be correct in tournaments. But they are not correct in most side games (in my opinion).

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Hi Duke:

You make a good point. These people gambled on everything. If they took the worse of it occasionally in poker, they might make it up big time on something else. But for most of us, not only are those days over, they never began in the first place.

Best wishes,
Mason