|
|
#21
07-07-2005, 11:33 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: ss1 vs. ss2 - NL section?
Exactly the same thing. It's a freaking joke.
|
|
#22
07-08-2005, 12:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#23
07-08-2005, 02:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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!
|
|
#24
07-08-2005, 03:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#25
07-08-2005, 03:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
|
#26
07-09-2005, 12:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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."
|
|
#27
07-10-2005, 08:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
