Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Received Supersystem for Christmas.

Rather enjoyed the book as it pretty much recommends doing everything I wouldn't at a poker table.

To whit:

"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.

"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 keep playing every pot until I lose one."

Yikes.

Any thoughts?

Best,
Zim

(That said, Invader Zim recognizes superior intelligence ... and has been applying Doyle strategy to the best of his abilities. Results have been excellent, which is really quite disturbing.)

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

this book was written during a period of time in which poker players had no sophisticated knowledge of percentages or strategics at all. doyle clearly does not enter a pot regardless of his hole cards after winning a pot any longer. back in that period it may have been correct. players were so primitive that doyle said he could beat a game without ever looking at his cards. he cannot do that any longer except when playing against people who just learned the game that day.

as for him freerolling with bad hands. look at gus hansen's style of play. getting it in with the worst hand is his trademark. he makes up for these -ev plays by all the pots he takes down.

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Remember this advice is against good tight aggressive players. Doyle points out in the book this will not work against weak players. Your going to have to show weaker players your cards.

And Doyle still plays many hands without looking at his cards. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

This approach is all about developing a psychological edge, that's all it is.

Brunson is not comfortable (in SUPERSYSTEM 1.0) playing in a way that is less than dominating.

Using the small pots to finance the all-in coin flips is simply a tactic that supports that goal.

He wants to give action! So he gives what looks like loose action, but it is not.

He often has the best draw after the flop. Often the best draw wins, and it's sweet when the pot is multi-way.

Alot of people say SUPERSYSTEM1.0 is obselete in the tournament era, but a careful read reveals many modern-day, tournament applicable Brunson gems.

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

"this book was written during a period of time in which poker players had no sophisticated knowledge of percentages or strategics at all."

You must be forgetting the pages of statistics Mike Caro provides for Super/System, that Sklansky also wrote for Super/System, and that the statistical ideas used in poker have been around for a long time. That being said, Doyle's motivation may also have been something that Slim mentions in his book, a desire to be seen as an action man. They grew up in a gambling world that involved more then just poker and having a rep as a tight person wouldn't help when you're trying to sucker a guy into a bet.

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

DB "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."

DB "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."


That's the Shania concept at work.

Z:"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."

In casino games making a negative expecation bet is negative, period. It just gets subtracted from the bottom line. There is no meta game(1).
Shania doesn't go there.

In poker what happens this hand affects the next hand and so forth. (Im talking multiway or exploitive strategies not headsup optimal) negative plays in isolation can lead to larger overall profits. In poker making positive expecation plays can lead to lower overall profits.

But learn to make the correct play in isolation. It's very important. (Perhaps even underrated) Fooling around with Shania may seem like a tempting prospect, but she can get you in trouble. Exploitive strategies are highly exploitable in themselves.

SV.





1)I am excluding cover bets made for pro players masking activity or shooting for comps.

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

My only problem with Doyle's philosophy is when you play that way you will probably experience higher variance in your bankroll. By taking risks you ultimately will win bigger pots, but you won't necessarily get the best of it every time.

When you sit tight you will have a much lower variance but you are less likely to double up through someone.

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

The part about playing any hand after winning one is dumb, of course. But the other part makes sense. It's not so much a philosophy as a description of why he wins given the way he plays. He plays a very aggressive style and manages to steal a lot of small pots. But occaisionally, he'll get trapped so that when the other player calls him, he's likely to have the worse of it. Nonetheless, he still manages to win because all those small pots finance these big gambles and occaisionally he'll draw out in these big gambles and hence be viewed as a lucky idiot.
This concept is, in my opinion, even more important in limit than no limit, especially in the bigger tougher games. The best players at these games do not wait for group 1,2 hands and trap their oponents. They play aggressive and manage to win a lot of small pots from the weaker, tighter players. But occaisionally, they'll look like idiots by betting with nothing into a strong hand. But overall, you cannot be successful above 150/300 unless you can play/think like this.

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Although you quote the passage, without reading and understanding the entire chapter Doyle's strategy is being taken out of context. There is more there than the average reader gets. Another aspect of this strategy, and I am paraphrasing, follows:

}{You have to understand the aggression factor here. When a fellow makes a small bet at the pot on the flop and I think he is weak, I'm either going to get all my chips in the middle, or raise enough that he knows he is going to have to get all in. When I bet $5K and he only has $20K, he knows that he is going to have to get all in on this hand by the river. I'm putting him to a decision to get all in, but I don't have to get $20K into the pot. 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. That way I can keep picking up the small pots.}{

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

I think Doyle's philosophy still holds water today. I would not attempt these strategies in a limit game (especially low limit). It is much harder to intimidate an opponent when you can't threaten his entire chip stack. This style is used by some tournament pros but I wouldn't recommend it unless you are very skilled and know how the players at your table play. Having tried this system of play at a small stakes no limit table on-line (max buy in or $25). I had great success for several hours, getting up to $100 and have most players scared when I came over the top at them. The thing that has been neglected in this discussion is Doyle's comments about switching gears. I didn't switch gears and let a couple of players double up on me when they started only playing premium hands. I left the table up $15.

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

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Hi Dan:

You wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
Alot of people say SUPERSYSTEM1.0 is obselete in the tournament era, but a careful read reveals many modern-day, tournament applicable Brunson gems.

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to agree with this. But the problem I have is that this material wasn't originally written with tournaments in mind.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Hi phish:

I really disagree. Let me tell you exactly what I think about the no limit section in SS (which is also the no limit section in SS2).

It seems to contradict itself. First off, you have the long introduction where Doyle says to play very aggressive and loose. That's what this thread is about. But when you finally get to the material on how to play the specific hands, the advice is now much more conservative and much more accurate in my opinion.

It looks to me like Doyle was looking to flop a big hand in a game where his opponent and he each had a big stack. Furthermore, he knew that many of these opponents were playing very tight and thus would only be in there with a very good hand, like a big pair, that they would have trouble getting away from. Thus he was willing to call bets and raises with hands like small pairs, small and medium suited connectors, and Ax suited because he knew that the implied odds were huge.

He was also willing to initiate action with these holdings early in a hand. Frequently he would pick up a small pot. But occasionally he would flop something big and there were still a lot of chips left to win.

All you have to do is reduce the stack sizes relative to the blinds and this approach gets defeated. In fact, with maximum buy-ins allowed in most of todays games, that is exactly what happens.

Best wishes,
mason

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Hi dogmeat:

This is just a classic semi-bluff. Notice that he states that "I can still fold if my opponent comes over the top." You can make these type of plays in limit, but they won't work as often.

best wishes,
mason

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Hi pzhon:

You hit the nail on the head. As long as you are the one who initiates the action and can get your opponent to fold a fair amount of the time, then you don't mind being the dog the small percentage of the time that you get called.

But if your opponent is the one making the big bet, it's poor poker to call knowing that you are taking way the worse of it. In limit, many of these calls are correct because of the large pot odds that you are getting. In no limit, the pot odds are often no where near what you need to continue in these hands. I think this is a distinction that Doyle does make but many people miss when they read the no limit section in SS.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

First time poster. I read all the posts and I think one thing Doyle does that is not mentioned by any posters is he plays draws very similar to how he plays the nuts. So many times when he goes over the top of his opponents he has a made hand (set, straight, flush). But he will also play his draws in the same manner and he's not afraid to put all his chips in with either his made hands or his draws. So when he gets all his chips in the middle his opponent has to think to himself if his TPTK is a 2:1 favorite to a draw, or dead to runner runner if he has a set. Also by going all-in with his draws prevents players from bluffing him, a player would have to put him on a pure bluff to bluff him, b/c he knows Doyle is very likely to put all his chips in the middle. Remember Doyle rarely puts his chips in w/o outs. It also doesn't hurt to have some of the best poker instincts in the world.

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Mason writes about the No Limit strategy in Super System:

[ QUOTE ]
All you have to do is reduce the stack sizes relative to the blinds and this approach gets defeated. In fact, with maximum buy-ins allowed in most of todays games, that is exactly what happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW this is exactly right. The portion of that book on No Limit was written from the viewpoint that players had huge stacks relative to the blinds.

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Certainly there are plenty of max buy-in games where this strategy does not work. However, in higher stakes NL especially there is usually no max buy-in and you will often see tables full of people with very deep stacks, interspersed with a few people playing min buy-ins. I have also played in plenty of 1-2, 1-2-2, and similar NL games with no max buy in where the average stack sizes are $1k or more. Doyle's advice works pretty well in these games IMO.

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

I get to correct Mason!

Doyle (in Super System) says AX suited is horrible and rarely playable. Everything else you stated was accurate.

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Very much appreciated, Vashtar.

(Particularly the warning about playing around with Shania ... how did you know I was planning to seduce her?)

Thanks,
Zim

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Thanks Mason,

I have heard this a number of times that the advice in SS is more relevant for those playing with large stacks.

Intidimation at a 50 max BB buy in, or even 100 (I suspect) is a little tougher to come by.

That said, I have been experimenting with aggression even at my low stakes ($100 max), and I'm surprised by all the folds.

I think I might look into the art of semi-bluffing. Doyle makes a strong case for it ...

Thanks,
Zim

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Lol!

Thats exactly what happened to me as well.

Twice.

The next night, I played my normal game and watched with amusement a guy who had quadrupled his buy-in using a maniac aggresso style.

I just waited for good hands, ignored whatever he did ... and got the better of things.

That said, I'm still amazed how far you can get by just being aggressive.

And I think there is some merit to the view that aggression, as a whole, might be a positive EV play.

Best,
Zim

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Hi adios:

I've been playing some in the no limit $10-$20 blind game at The Belagio. Some of the players here buy-in for a very large amount relative to the blinds and then overbet the pot when they flop medium strength hands. They seem to want everyone out so then won't get beat on a later street. Against this type of opponent, the Doyle ideas also make more sense.

best wishes,
Mason

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Hi Kaz:

Actually you make my point. Doyle says this in the later part of the chapter where he begins to talk about specific hands. This is the part where he is much more conservative. But if you only read the first 30 pages or so, you would think that Ax suited was a sure play.

Best wishes,
Mason

Thanks, gentlemen, for your feedback.
 

A great thanks to all who responded.

I admit to butchering Doyle a little to promote some discussion, but you all knew that.

I'm actually quite interested in "systematic" semi-bluffing in NL. Given a 50/50 proposition ... and you get the better of things 1/3 of the time in a worst case scenario (given a suitable amount of outs)...

Those sound like pretty good odds.

Thanks,
Zim

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Foiled again!

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

I haven't read the other responses but lets say we play in an uncapped buy in NL game and you've got 5k and I've got 100k .....what are the odds of busting me if you flop top set every hand against my flush draw and we go all in on the flop every time?

This strategy of going all in with a drawing hand or worse hand works pretty well when eventually you will be busting people.

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

Victory by Risk of Ruin is not what Doyle is trying to accomplish. His aggressive style allows him to pick up so many small pots that when he is in a large pot with a 30/60 dog the money he is in with has already been won and so he is on a free roll.

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

One thing no-one seems to have mentioned yet is that if both you and your opponent are using the gap concept, you will have the worse hand more than 50% of the time you are called, since the range of hands needed to call is stronger than the range of hands needed to bet.

Re: Doyle philosophy troublesome
 

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the other responses but lets say we play in an uncapped buy in NL game and you've got 5k and I've got 100k .....what are the odds of busting me if you flop top set every hand against my flush draw and we go all in on the flop every time?

This strategy of going all in with a drawing hand or worse hand works pretty well when eventually you will be busting people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a cash game not a tournament. I couldn't care less about busting you and, so long as I can keep reloading, I'll take my set vs. your draw any time. If I can't rebuy enough to profit against you playing this way, I'm playing in a game too big for my bankroll.

Isn\'t it interesting
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi phish:


It looks to me like Doyle was looking to flop a big hand in a game where his opponent and he each had a big stack.

All you have to do is reduce the stack sizes relative to the blinds and this approach gets defeated. In fact, with maximum buy-ins allowed in most of todays games, that is exactly what happens.

Best wishes,
mason

[/ QUOTE ]

What Sklansky talks about in TOP is low blinds/antes compared to stack sizes means you can wait for the nuts to play, and never have to get involved with marginal hands. Conversely, high blinds and antes mean you have to play a lot more hands.

However, you make the point that in NL games, you play much tighter in max buy in games, and can play much looser in games where the stacks are deep (due to the implied odds).