Is Super System 2's NL Section Outdated?

I want to preface this post by saying that Doyle Brunson is a god to me and I consider him the greatest to ever sit down at a poker table. However, I've long been critical of SSII's NL section not being updated. It's the exact same as the original with a few, very minor changes. It's been said that the limit section is outdated and the Harman section in SSII is more appropriate for today's game. I can't comment on that as I rarely play limit and when I do I pretty much play super tight. Even though the general strategy Brunson advocates is a great strategy for a player that knows what he's doing, I believe there should've been some changes made and I'd love to know what other 2+2ers think. For example, in his discussion of playing pocket Aces and Kings, he writes on page 567 that's he less leary about a three-flush flop being dangerous than a three-to-a-straight flop. He'd be more cautious with the latter. Now, it's been my experience that there are a hell of a lot more guys that will play any two suited cards than any two connecting cards. Obviously, through careful observation, you'll know if your in a hand with such a player and adjust accordingly, but, since he is giving a general philosophy, shouldn't the opposite be true?

[orange]

The SSII NL hold'em section is the same as the first. Few, if any changes have been made.

[ QUOTE ]
The SSII NL hold'em section is the same as the first. Few, if any changes have been made.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I covered that in my original post. The question I wish for others to address is, are there concepts in it that are less than accurate and should've been changed?

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The SSII NL hold'em section is the same as the first. Few, if any changes have been made.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I covered that in my original post. The question I wish for others to address is, are there concepts in it that are less than accurate and should've been changed?

[/ QUOTE ]

You'd get a better response if you asked a question that has not already been covered ad nauseam.

[ QUOTE ]
You'd get a better response if you asked a question that has not already been covered ad nauseam.

[/ QUOTE ]
As would you if you weren't a smart ass.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You'd get a better response if you asked a question that has not already been covered ad nauseam.

[/ QUOTE ]
As would you if you weren't a smart ass.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not the one that was looking for a response.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not the one that was looking for a response.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure you were, that's why you replied, you freak. Now, if you can't address the issue, don't bother replying. The point of the post was to generate an intelligent discussion. If you're not capable of that, then you're wasting my time.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not the one that was looking for a response.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure you were, that's why you replied, you freak. Now, if you can't address the issue, don't bother replying. The point of the post was to generate an intelligent discussion. If you're not capable of that, then you're wasting my time.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I wasn't looking for a response. I was telling you to look for the answer. I refrained from telling you that you're an idiot before, but I'm now correcting my omission. I am addressing the issue. The issue as i see it is the question of why people are too lazy to use the search function. You're pretty much wasting your own time, by asking questions that have already been discussed intelligently over and over. [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

[cwsiggy]

There are mathematically more combinations that people could have that could connect with a three to a straight board than the flush obviously, though, yes it does seem people play suited cards more than just os connectors. Doyle's style is very aggressive. I don't think it's outdated

[orange]

Doyle's style will get you killed in smaller stakes ring games. Mid-high, I wouldn't know.