Doyle philosophy troublesome

[Zim]

Lol!

Thats exactly what happened to me as well.

Twice.

The next night, I played my normal game and watched with amusement a guy who had quadrupled his buy-in using a maniac aggresso style.

I just waited for good hands, ignored whatever he did ... and got the better of things.

That said, I'm still amazed how far you can get by just being aggressive.

And I think there is some merit to the view that aggression, as a whole, might be a positive EV play.

Best,
Zim

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi adios:

I've been playing some in the no limit $10-$20 blind game at The Belagio. Some of the players here buy-in for a very large amount relative to the blinds and then overbet the pot when they flop medium strength hands. They seem to want everyone out so then won't get beat on a later street. Against this type of opponent, the Doyle ideas also make more sense.

best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Kaz:

Actually you make my point. Doyle says this in the later part of the chapter where he begins to talk about specific hands. This is the part where he is much more conservative. But if you only read the first 30 pages or so, you would think that Ax suited was a sure play.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Zim]

A great thanks to all who responded.

I admit to butchering Doyle a little to promote some discussion, but you all knew that.

I'm actually quite interested in "systematic" semi-bluffing in NL. Given a 50/50 proposition ... and you get the better of things 1/3 of the time in a worst case scenario (given a suitable amount of outs)...

Those sound like pretty good odds.

Thanks,
Zim

[Kaz The Original]

Foiled again!

[Sponger15SB]

I haven't read the other responses but lets say we play in an uncapped buy in NL game and you've got 5k and I've got 100k .....what are the odds of busting me if you flop top set every hand against my flush draw and we go all in on the flop every time?

This strategy of going all in with a drawing hand or worse hand works pretty well when eventually you will be busting people.

[Kaz The Original]

Victory by Risk of Ruin is not what Doyle is trying to accomplish. His aggressive style allows him to pick up so many small pots that when he is in a large pot with a 30/60 dog the money he is in with has already been won and so he is on a free roll.

[ACW]

One thing no-one seems to have mentioned yet is that if both you and your opponent are using the gap concept, you will have the worse hand more than 50% of the time you are called, since the range of hands needed to call is stronger than the range of hands needed to bet.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't read the other responses but lets say we play in an uncapped buy in NL game and you've got 5k and I've got 100k .....what are the odds of busting me if you flop top set every hand against my flush draw and we go all in on the flop every time?

This strategy of going all in with a drawing hand or worse hand works pretty well when eventually you will be busting people.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a cash game not a tournament. I couldn't care less about busting you and, so long as I can keep reloading, I'll take my set vs. your draw any time. If I can't rebuy enough to profit against you playing this way, I'm playing in a game too big for my bankroll.

[binions]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi phish:


It looks to me like Doyle was looking to flop a big hand in a game where his opponent and he each had a big stack.

All you have to do is reduce the stack sizes relative to the blinds and this approach gets defeated. In fact, with maximum buy-ins allowed in most of todays games, that is exactly what happens.

Best wishes,
mason

[/ QUOTE ]

What Sklansky talks about in TOP is low blinds/antes compared to stack sizes means you can wait for the nuts to play, and never have to get involved with marginal hands. Conversely, high blinds and antes mean you have to play a lot more hands.

However, you make the point that in NL games, you play much tighter in max buy in games, and can play much looser in games where the stacks are deep (due to the implied odds).