Brunson ' quote about Sklansky

[Lucky]

This is poker, not exactly the Grey Poupon of pastimes. Dolly calls 'em like he seems 'em. That's why he's lasted longer than any of them, and always outplayed the "scientists."


"If you're Big Star Bound, let me warn ya it's a Long Hard Ride."

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi AJo Go All In:

Doyle's regular game today is approximately what you describe. But they also play pot limit Omaha for ultra high stakes. Years ago, when Ray was a little younger, Doyle was known as a no limit player for very large stakes. But those games don't exist anymore.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi WarmonkEd:

Actually, this is very easy to understand, but you need to know the history of poker. Back in the mid 1970s when Super/System was being put together, the statistical understanding of poker/gambling that is available today was just beginning. For instance, when I ventured on the scene starting around 1980 I couldn't believe that a good statistician hadn't addressed many of the issues that players of that time were wrestling with.

In a sense, Doyle was one of the first of the professional poker players to begin to approach poker in a more scientific manner. That's what his book Super/System is about. But it probably couldn't be helped that some of the old silly ideas were able to creep in.

By the way, as I understand it, Hold 'em Poker by David Sklansky was actually published a couple of months before How I Made $1,000,000 Playing Poker, the original title of Doyle's book, appeared. Since David was (and still is) a real mathematician, none of these ideas about luck and rushes are in his work, and the presentation of Hold 'em Poker was much more rigorous (in my opinion) than Super/System.

The effect of this is that, again in my opinion, Hold 'em Poker has been far more influential than Super/System, did more to bring poker out of the dark ages (even though both books did a lot in this area), and did more to bring the everyday person into our game.

Best wishes,
Mason

[kingstalker]

Doyle RULES!!!!!

[TylerD]

Shouldn't that be O'Doyle rules, oh wait this isn't that Adam Sandler film.

[Gildersneeze]

[ QUOTE ]
Warmonk had this to say about a world without Robocop:

ok, I don't believe in this clumping effect. That's like saying "because red has been hit 10 times in a roulette game, the next one will be red." I think we all know that's simply NOT true.

[/ QUOTE ]The clumping effect happens. Its opposite also happens. Think about it like this.

If you're playing tight (solid) poker, especially when just starting out and playing ABC hand groupings only, you're only going to see between 15% and 23% of all flops dealt if you stick strictly without fail to those hand groups (not counting unraised BB checks).

Now that 15% to 20% of all flops is an OVERALL figure. We'll use 1000 hands as an example. If you're seeing 20% of flops over the course of 1000 hands, that's 200 starting hands that you get, you see the flop, or one in every five flops. However, that doesn't mean every five flops, you got dealt one of the big hands.

More than likely, that 1000 hands was spread over three or four sessions at the table. Let's say out of those 200 hands you played, 98 of them came in your first 250 hand session. That means you only have 112 good starting hands left to go, but 750 hands left to play.

Unfortunately for you, all those good hands clumped into your first 250 hand session.

If clumping didn't happen, I wouldn't have sessions where I pick up pocket rockets three or four times in a night. I'd only pick them up specifically every 220 hands.

Using the one in 220 rules, think about this in this little set of numbers. AA will represent which hand out of a set of 220 that you were dealt aces.

[1,2,3,4...215,216,217,AA,219,220]

So on deal #218, you picked up the Aces. Now let's put it next to another set that starts at #1. Again, AA represents which hand out of 1-220 you get the Aces.

[1,2,3,4...215,216,217,AA,219,220][1,AA,2,3...215,216,217,218,219,220]

Notice on the next set of numbers, you hit AA on deal #2. The aces have clumped. This can happen in reverse, too (getting AA on deal #2 in set one, and deal #218 on set two).

Either way, you have to realize that what I've done, you can't even count on, because you're supposed to look at the numbers 50 years down the road, as you finally put down poker for the rest of your life and look back to count the total number of hands (if you can remember them all) against the times you had specific starting hands.

Even simpler, if hand clumping didn't happen, I wouldn't have been dealt KTo four times in a row tonight on Pokerroom.com.

[WarmonkEd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Warmonk had this to say about a world without Robocop:

ok, I don't believe in this clumping effect. That's like saying "because red has been hit 10 times in a roulette game, the next one will be red." I think we all know that's simply NOT true.

[/ QUOTE ]The clumping effect happens. Its opposite also happens. Think about it like this.

If you're playing tight (solid) poker, especially when just starting out and playing ABC hand groupings only, you're only going to see between 15% and 23% of all flops dealt if you stick strictly without fail to those hand groups (not counting unraised BB checks).

Now that 15% to 20% of all flops is an OVERALL figure. We'll use 1000 hands as an example. If you're seeing 20% of flops over the course of 1000 hands, that's 200 starting hands that you get, you see the flop, or one in every five flops. However, that doesn't mean every five flops, you got dealt one of the big hands.

More than likely, that 1000 hands was spread over three or four sessions at the table. Let's say out of those 200 hands you played, 98 of them came in your first 250 hand session. That means you only have 112 good starting hands left to go, but 750 hands left to play.

Unfortunately for you, all those good hands clumped into your first 250 hand session.

If clumping didn't happen, I wouldn't have sessions where I pick up pocket rockets three or four times in a night. I'd only pick them up specifically every 220 hands.

Using the one in 220 rules, think about this in this little set of numbers. AA will represent which hand out of a set of 220 that you were dealt aces.

[1,2,3,4...215,216,217,AA,219,220]

So on deal #218, you picked up the Aces. Now let's put it next to another set that starts at #1. Again, AA represents which hand out of 1-220 you get the Aces.

[1,2,3,4...215,216,217,AA,219,220][1,AA,2,3...215,216,217,218,219,220]

Notice on the next set of numbers, you hit AA on deal #2. The aces have clumped. This can happen in reverse, too (getting AA on deal #2 in set one, and deal #218 on set two).

Either way, you have to realize that what I've done, you can't even count on, because you're supposed to look at the numbers 50 years down the road, as you finally put down poker for the rest of your life and look back to count the total number of hands (if you can remember them all) against the times you had specific starting hands.

Even simpler, if hand clumping didn't happen, I wouldn't have been dealt KTo four times in a row tonight on Pokerroom.com.

[/ QUOTE ]

...
so do you believe that if 10 reds hit at a roulette table, the next spin will MORE likely be a red than a black?

Just to be clear on this, I'm not saying that all your hands will always be evenly distributed. What I DO believe is that past hands have NO EFFECT on future hands. The fact that you hit KTo four times MEANS NOTHING.

[Louie Landale]

Brunson has great intuition. You do NOT need to know "correct" calling frequencies if you can tell when he's bluffing and when he's not. In fact, you don't even need to know ABOUT correct calling frequencies.

If you read carefully the no-limit section, he plays LAG because his judgment is ..err.. was so great. Yes, play LAG when you know you won't get into trouble later in the hand. That's great advise for the real good "feel" players but pretty bad advise for the rest of us.

Great intuitive players don't make good authors, since their playing style depends on their intuition. Just because it works for them doesn't mean it works.

- Louie

[George Rice]

[ QUOTE ]
The effect of this is that, again in my opinion, Hold 'em Poker has been far more influential than Super/System, did more to bring poker out of the dark ages (even though both books did a lot in this area), and did more to bring the everyday person into our game.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. But more to the point, I think that David has done more for poker than any other individual, up to this point. The WPT may do more for the total number of players if it hasn't already done so. But David has certainly contributed more to the theory aspect than any other individual--and is responsible for more good players.

I make this point because I wonder why he isn't in the "Poker Hall of Fame." He certainly should be--regardless of the stated criteria.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Louie,

[ QUOTE ]
If you read carefully the no-limit section, he plays LAG because his judgment is ..err.. was so great. Yes, play LAG when you know you won't get into trouble later in the hand. That's great advise for the real good "feel" players but pretty bad advise for the rest of us.

[/ QUOTE ]

Doyle admitted that he had to stop playing so aggressively after he wrote SUPER SYSTEMS, because his opponents started calling him down, so he had to show down hands. And since then, obviously, he lost his huge edge.

I spoke with Phil Hellmuth about this phenomenon and he said it is easier for a newcomer to win the WSOP or another big event because no one knows how the newcomer plays. He too played very aggressively early in his career, and was extremely successful. Then he had to modify his play in the same way: bluffing less, showing down more winners.

All of the top pros scout each other, Phil says, and quickly learn each other's strengths, weaknesses, and habits. After that, the newcomers have to start adjusting their games, and over time they tend to homogenize toward what might be called "standard" play.

Cris