BRUNSON'S SUPER/SYSTEM PLAYING STYLE.....

[wontons]

I believe this book to enter in the PYSCHOLOGY realm, because dolye states when he sits at a table and brings say 1k, he will lose that 1k 3 out of 4 times when he first buys in. But the time he doesnt lose it more than makes up for it etc etc...

However my question is HOW MANY OF US ARE WILLING to get all our money in the pot while we are BEHIND? Doyle says basically if his oppenent has AK or AA and the flop is A 4 5 and he holds 76...he'll put all his money in there...MOST OF US TRY TO LOSE THE HAND FAST AS POSSIBLE when we feel we're behind.

So my ULITIMATE QUESTION is this....you can read and reread this book, but WOULD you be willing to adapt this type of play. Getting all your money in while you are behind? Losing 3 out of 4 of your intial buy-in's? etc..etc..

[LetsRock]

That doesn't fit my style, but I do see players that have adopted this style, and they are very hard to play against - you just never know if they are full, or full of it. There's one guy in a regular game I play in (he's been playing for years and I think he basically is a pro) and he is usually the cause of me walking away talking to myself because I can't tell if he's preying on my "weak" tendencies when I'm in a marginal spot, or if he has a monster and just wants to steal my chips.

I would say that you need to be a very good player reader to play Brunson's basic style. You need to KNOW who will run and who will fight when you shove.

[SossMan]

He does it so that people will be scared to play a pot with him. This allows him to steal unprotected pots and he gets action w/ his big hands. And, he says to always do it when you have outs to the nuts. It basically makes your opponents play you predictably because you know they are scared to go against you w/ marginal holdings.
Personally, my balls aren't that big.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

he will lose that 1k 3 out of 4 times

This is the flaw in your reasoning. He'll lose 3 out of 4 times he's called, not 3 out of 4 times he bets. It's awful tough to call for a lot of $$$ if all you have is one pair.

[wontons]

No, you misunderstood. He states he will bring 1,000 to a table as the intial buy-in and lose all of it 3 out of 4 playing sessions. Then he must rebuy. But the one time where he doesn't haven to rebuy he states he does well enough to cover the other 3 1,000 loss sessions at the beginning of his session. My main question I was posing is how many of us have that kind of "balls" to take on that approach of playing.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Certainly, I don't.

I do wonder, though if Doyle brunson ever plays a game with such a paltry (by his standards) buy-in as $1,000.

[eggzz]

[ QUOTE ]
I do wonder, though if Doyle brunson ever plays a game with such a paltry (by his standards) buy-in as $1,000

[/ QUOTE ]

Hell yes he did. He wrote the book in what, 1976. You could have bought a car back then for a grand. Well, maybe a new Pinto, but that was a lot of jack back then.

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

Well, maybe a new Pinto, but that was a lot of jack back then.

Not even. I bought a new Pinto in '73 and it cost about $1,250 with no options. By '76, inflation had already begun driving prices up.

But your point is well taken.

[C M Burns]

Actually as far as loosing that 1k 3/4 times, he says he could usually make that 1k back+ in THAT session. But as far as your question in the book he says his style works b/c so many people are afaraid to play that way, and he picks up so many pots that when he is behind he is freeroling, and doesn't do worse than break even if he looses. So in a sense he is not risking all HIS money with the worst of it.

The thing is i see many people with the wontons to put in all their money with the worst of it (although usually 100's not thousands), they are generally loosing players who like to gamble. So I don't see it as there aren't many people willing to risk all their money on longshots. There are just realativley few who know how to incorperate this part into a winning strategy. And this is what can make poker so hard as in psych of poker it is said that you have to be both causious and aggressive/recklass at times. Most people are one or the other, so it can be hard to overcome.

[pretender2k]

Is the real question are we smart enough to only buy in for 25% of the money we brought and be secure enough with our play that we can walk away after loosing all four but-ins and know we are still a good player. Remember the only mistake in Rounders: taking your whole BR to one game.