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.