I disagree with Doyle.
 

In the early part of the No Limit Hold'em section of Super/System 2, Doyle writes, "if I win ten pots where nobody has a big hand, ten pots with let's say $3,000 in them, I can afford to take 2 to 1 the worst of it and play a $30,000 pot. I've already got that pot covered thanks to all the small pots I've picked up. And when I play that big pot, it's a freeroll."

Does anyone else see a problem with this statement? It's not a freeroll. Once you've won the money in earlier pots, that's your money. If you're taking the worst of it in a big pot (or any pot), you're making a -EV play. The only upside I can see is how it affects your image for future hands. Am I missing the point?

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

Doyle isn't making ten steals and then throwing away his money on the eleventh pot. He's making eleven steals. Ten of them are successful, and one of them is going to showdown. The other ten pay for the showdown hand.

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

I had trouble with this originally too, but then I realized that Doyle is taking 2-1 the worst of it when called on all of his steals. Of course, he doesn't know that he will or won't be called on any of these steals individually, but he knows that the times that he is successful will counterbalance the times that he isn't.

Its not as though he thinks to himself "I just won a bunch of money. Now I am going to go blow it on a bonehead play"

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

I thought something very similar when I read it. I think you are correct.

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I had trouble with this originally too, but then I realized that Doyle is taking 2-1 the worst of it when called on all of his steals. Of course, he doesn't know that he will or won't be called on any of these steals individually, but he knows that the times that he is successful will counterbalance the times that he isn't.

Its not as though he thinks to himself "I just won a bunch of money. Now I am going to go blow it on a bonehead play"

[/ QUOTE ]

Then I guess the point is that since he doesn't know which flop steal attempt will get called, there better be a turn card that gives him a draw (if he didn't already have one) for him to continue to play the hand aggressively. But I guess two overcards like AK isn't considered to be a drawing hand on a ragged flop.

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

What? I don't understand your first statement. You know, Doyle doesn't play in games we play. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] If someone plays back after his steal attempt, that's an all-in situation.

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
What? I don't understand your first statement. You know, Doyle doesn't play in games we play. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] If someone plays back after his steal attempt, that's an all-in situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

yep.. and that's why i find reading his material a bit dangerous for a beginning small stakes NL player such as myself. (1/2 and below) i'm about to buy Mastering No-Limit Hold'em by Russell Fox. it comes highly recommended from my successful small stakes NL friends. do we like this book?

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

Shania

http://www.shania-twain-tickets.com/images/index.jpg

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

Think of the 10 pots and the 2 to 1 the worst of it for a 30,000 pot as one bet.

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

I haven't read the book in a while, but I think the section is tournament-only. I don't really play much NL, but I do not think that is a great idea to go all-in with a marginal hand (in a ring game) like Doyle writes in SuperSystem.

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the book in a while, but I think the section is tournament-only.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's about cash games.

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

There are a couple of points you miss. First, if he wins 10 $3000 pots making semibluffs and gets called on one $30,000 pot taking 2 to 1 the worst of it per 11 attempts on average, then he is making around $10,000 per these 11 hands on average. Not too bad considering he is making money no matter what type a dog he is when he gets called. The second major factor, is this strategy lets him get paid off on his big hands too. People won't want to fold TPTK against him, so often he will get called when he holds a set, 2 pair, or a made straight. The beauty of this is that the extra action he generates will give him heavy rewards on his bigger hands and even more than pays for itself.

I have never played this strategy, but it at least appears sound to me from what I have read in Supersystem. I don't believe this strategy is suited for most of todays lower buy-in games (which is where I play), because people will just call too much and there really isn't much need to generate action (you get plenty in my experience). There is no way you will be stealing enough to make this profitable. Against unsophisticated opponents you just need to show them a hand and draw with proper odds which I believe Doyle discusses as well.

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

Which is why Doyle does so poorly in tournaments.
HE SHOULD READ HARRINGTON ON HOLD'EM VOL 1 AND 2!!!

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why Doyle does so poorly in tournaments.
HE SHOULD READ HARRINGTON ON HOLD'EM VOL 1 AND 2!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

winning his 10th wsop bracelet in 6max at age 70+ is doing poorly?

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

[ QUOTE ]


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which is why Doyle does so poorly in tournaments.
HE SHOULD READ HARRINGTON ON HOLD'EM VOL 1 AND 2!!!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



winning his 10th wsop bracelet in 6max at age 70+ is doing poorly?

[/ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

Did I forget the [sarcasm] tags again?

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

Search around - there was a long post about the ups and downs of that book.

Also - Doyle is top notch poker player and has been forever - there are prob tons of decisions he makes based on a whole number of thoughts, that could not possibly be written down in a book. I'm sure the information can be used if followed correctly, but he knows his opponents so well that he can play in that style. Plus, you have to be a super-aggressive player in the first place to use that style.

Check out that example where he called a guy down with Jack high - he makes it sound simple, but I'm sure he knew that player so well and practically "knew" his hand that he could make the call.

ss1 vs. ss2 - NL section?
 

Are the NL sections in the books exactly the same? If not, what is added in SS2 that is of importance?

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Which is why Doyle does so poorly in tournaments.
HE SHOULD READ HARRINGTON ON HOLD'EM VOL 1 AND 2!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

You should read things you want to be sarcastic about as well. It's easier to avoid coming off as a total troll then. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: ss1 vs. ss2 - NL section?
 

Exactly the same thing. It's a freaking joke.

Re: ss1 vs. ss2 - NL section?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly the same thing. It's a freaking joke.

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah, i bought SS2 a little while back and i'm finally getting around to reading the NL section. even though i read SS1 some time ago, it seems incredibly familiar. i'm not even sure if it's just a bit dangerous for me to be reading it, as the strategies outlined don't really apply to those 1/2 and 2/5 games most of us play. i heard jennifer harman's section on limit makes up for it though.

i'd say the best NL book i ever read was HOH1, and i'm waiting for HOH2 in the mail now. but that's tourney poker. i've never read a good book on NL cash games.

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

How many WSOP braclets do you have?? Or WPT championships.

I belive the above mentioned are tourneys! Are they not?

Doyle is the pimp...Harrington on Hold Em is for pimp wannabes like you and I!

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
How many WSOP braclets do you have?? Or WPT championships.

I belive the above mentioned are tourneys! Are they not?

Doyle is the pimp...Harrington on Hold Em is for pimp wannabes like you and I!

[/ QUOTE ]

Doyle hasn't written any books on tourneys. At least in the main event, I'd say Dan Harrington has accomplished more over the years than Doyle. Think of how many people he had to beat out to make the final table the past two years in a row, plus win it in 1995. When Doyle won in the 70s there were far fewer entrants. I'd venture a guess that Doyle is a better cash game player and Harrington is a better tournament player.

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

The irony is that the strategy that Doyle outlines is actually pretty close to the "super aggressive" strategy that most of the young guns play today. The points that Doyle makes are very easily misinterpreted, and dangerous to try at low stakes no-limit. Exactly as you say, he points out that you only try these things against good players. This is the key. And you don't always play "fast", you have to vary your tempo, sometimes fast, sometimes slow, so people can't get a read on you. He also mentions this.

I find that carefully rereading this section from time to time has helped my tournament game immensely --- I understand it better and better as I get more experience under my belt. But don't try it in low stakes --- it is only effective in high stakes.

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

Many people misunderstand Doyle's advice. Yes, he's taking the worst of it in that pot, but he's sending his opponents a message.

"Don't play back with nothing, because I'll call with just about anything."

Re: I disagree with Doyle.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Many people misunderstand Doyle's advice. Yes, he's taking the worst of it in that pot, but he's sending his opponents a message.

"Don't play back with nothing, because I'll call with just about anything."

[/ QUOTE ]

Thank you for pointing this out. While the math shows that this strategy is clearly +EV for the hands played, the fact that you are taking a stand and therefore scaring your opponents from bluffing you is huge. You may also look like a donk with this strategy. Pre SS1/2 people thought Doyle was a huge donk; he exploted this image well.