Super System NL Holdem Section

I am about to read the section in super system 1 on NL holdem and i know it has been said that some of the strategy in there is not applicable anymore, ecspecially at the lower stakes, which is where i will be playing. what sections sections should i read then that are applicable to the games i will be playing in. page numbers may be helpful, thanks...

[Niediam]

The main thing is that in today's game the stacks are not nearly as deep and the players are much looser. Therefore your opponent will not be folding his TPTK when you push with your OESD.

I think Super System is good under certain conditions. Brunson's style is more psychological rather than mathematical. His aggresiveness is aimed at getting under the skin of other players. Works great too, given the right opponents. It also works shorthanded, not in a full ring. And, it takes some poker-knowhow before you can use it correctly. You should not make it your first book IMO.

NL is a more psychological game than mathematical. We had this discussion on the Caro article. Math applies, but, implied odds are more important. You can give up correct pot odds for the chance to stack a person if you make your hand. You're right, it's not the perfect book for beginners, but, it doesn't hurt to read it and try out the ideas. I mean, you only learn how things work through trial and error.

[betgo]

[ QUOTE ]
NL is a more psychological game than mathematical. We had this discussion on the Caro article. Math applies, but, implied odds are more important. You can give up correct pot odds for the chance to stack a person if you make your hand. You're right, it's not the perfect book for beginners, but, it doesn't hurt to read it and try out the ideas. I mean, you only learn how things work through trial and error.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aggression is mathematical more than psychological. A semibluff works because of folding equity. Plus you force your opponents to pay you off when you hit.

The aggression part is very useful, as is all of the work. He says don't bluff a calling station and play tight at loose games.

In a typical live 1/2 NL game, playing real aggressive is not going to work for most people. With people going allin with top pair, it is easier to just play tight and look to get payed off with big hands. This approach would not work in the games Brunson plays in.

"Aggression is mathematical more than psychological."
I disagree. Some people are aggressive, others are passive. It's human nature, not math.
"He says don't bluff a calling station and play tight at loose games." You even agree with me. There's no math involved here, you're just playing the player.
"In a typical live 1/2 NL game, playing real aggressive is not going to work for most people. With people going allin with top pair, it is easier to just play tight and look to get payed off with big hands. This approach would not work in the games Brunson plays in."
That's true, to an extent. It depends how good your draw is. However, aggressive pre-flop betting in these types of games can be beneficial as well. Generally you get guys to play hands they shouldn't be playing, they call raises with hands much too weak to call raises with. However, such games tend to feature unbelievable suckouts.

[benfranklin]

[ QUOTE ]

Aggression is mathematical more than psychological. A semibluff works because of folding equity.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is rarely the case at the levels that most of us mere mortals play. If you put a big raise on Phil Ivey, he is sitting there putting you on a range of hands, figuring the implied odds vs. the odds of making his hand, reviewing your previous play, etc.

If you put a big raise on IveyEnvy at PP in a $100 NL game, he is sitting there thinking: does he have it, am I beat, I think this is a good hand, I don't know, maybe I should fold, I need another beer, is this guy any good, maybe I should call, etc.

Or the guy immediately came back all in over the top of you with T8o, because he saw Gus Hansen win a WPT event that way.

[ QUOTE ]
NL is a more psychological game than mathematical. We had this discussion on the Caro article. Math applies, but, implied odds are more important. You can give up correct pot odds for the chance to stack a person if you make your hand. You're right, it's not the perfect book for beginners, but, it doesn't hurt to read it and try out the ideas. I mean, you only learn how things work through trial and error.

[/ QUOTE ]

russian bear, you make a good point!

alot of us (and i'm probably one of the biggest culprits on this forum) seem to want books to tell us exactly how to play.

but i'm learning that there are so many types of hold-em (limit, no-limit, short/long tourney's, short-handed) not to mention so many types of opponents (adjusting to the different games), that books are only starting points.

i find it very helpful to engage a cycle of books/reading, playing, thinking about it, simulation (or trying stuff for free on wilson software). don't get me wrong, i still love books.

i guess worst case, i'm looking for a book to give me a few "aha!!" ideas, where i realize i've really been doing something wrong.

also, all the good books seem to get into player reads pretty fast. i.e. there's a limit to how far you can take your poker without that....

note that i've liked low limit hold-em as there have been alot of loose-passive games (and i can watch TV while multi-tabling and do o.k.), but i see those games tightening up as poor players either 1) quit; 2) get a book and learn absolute basics; 3) move to shorthanded (where they can play slightly better by accident); 4) move to no-limit (cash/SNG/tournament).

one last question: do people find it difficult to move between all the different conditions (limit/no-limit, cash/tournament, full/SH, passive/aggressive, loose/tight).... am i doing myself a disservice by jumping between these on an intra-daily (or more frequent) basis?

I rarely play limit, I don't get it. I'll play micro-limits on UB once in a great while, but that's just to kill time. As far as jumping between cash/tournament, full ring/shorthanded, loose/passive, well, that goes with the territory and you have to be mindful of where you're at. Often, when I'm at a table online, after I've stacked a couple of guys, people begin to leave the table, they don't want to play with me anymore. Those that remain keep trying to trap me. So, the game has changed and you have to recognize that and adjust. Sometime at the B&M a few loose players leave after a while and are replaced by new, different players. Maybe the new guys are loose too, maybe they're tight-passive. It does change the complexion of the game and you must adjust. As for playing in cash games and tournaments, yes, there is a difference and you cannot forget where you're at. But, I don't think it'll harm you to play a sit and go or two online, then go play a ring game for a while.

Read the whole damn thing and learn through trial and error like I did what works and what doesn't. Then, remember to play the player and not the cards. And, tone the aggression down a hair at the lower levels, especially with capped buy-ins. Much of what he talks about is applicable to deep stack poker.