Doyle Brunson's Style of Playing No Limit

[DaveduFresne]

Anyone actually tried playing this way? Seems to me, the more I play online the tighter the games get.

I wonder if his style might work by running over the games, or do people still call too much for this to be effective?

When I first started out playing online, I sort of tried his style, but I have to say, I didn't do it correctly (ie if I had an AK that missed, and someone reraised me I would go all in with just Ace high). So as you can imagine, I lost many buy ins before I tightened up.

Anyone who really knew what they were doing try the Brunson style?

[fl0w]

Im just getting into NL and I can say for sure that I ain't playing it the right way, loosing way too much

[johnsy]

doyles style worked and works for him because he is a master card reader......he has a great knack for putting an opponent on a hand as well as exceptional timing, "feel", and the ability to switch gears........unless your doing it all it could be disaterous...........

[DaveduFresne]

Well throw up a post, I for one would be happy to help you. I ain't perfect myself, but I think I mostly know what the right play is, even if I don't always do it [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

And if I don't there's plenty of very knowledgeable people on here that can help you out.

David

[Komodo]

I havent read the book. What is Doyle Brunson's Style?
is the book good?

[DaveduFresne]

"I havent read the book. What is Doyle Brunson's Style?
is the book good?"

Are you being sarcastic? Oh well, if you are I can afford to waste a few minutes of my time explaining it anyways....

I don't think I've ever heard someone say SuperSystem is not a good book, although I have heard a few say that time has to some extent passed his style by (I'm personally on the fence on this one).

His style is agression...make your opponent make a decision for all his chips. Many young players today have the impression that his play was much like Gus Hansen...this is incorrect. Doyle had a stringent selection of starting hands, but when he was in a pot, even with just suited connectors, he would hammer away with bets and raises. His philosophy was if he was the raiser, bet irregardless of what the flop was (90% of the time), if he got raised, if he had any kind of draw (even as little as in inside straight draw) he would go ahead and get all his chips in. Or if he had the third button with a hand, he would still go ahead and get all his chips in the middle if raised.

If he was on a rush, then he might play a garbage hand and even raise with it, but only when he was rushing.

He also believed in changing gears, occasionally tightening up, and then suddenly going back to the aggressive style.

To give an example of a play he advocates, a guy raises with AK in early position you call with 56 of diamonds. The flop comes A78 rainbow. He bets, you raise all in. Obviously, if you play ever hand like that, the guy is going to call you in a second. But if you also are changing gears, well, particularly in a high limit game, he may throw his hand away, and if he doesn't you have about a 1/3 chance of drawing out. You get compensated for the times you miss by players throwing their hands away. Also, you don't know what the guy has. A pair of Kings would be very hard pressed to call the all in, for example. So by exerting this kind of pressure, you will likely get all but he strongest hands to fold.

Hope that explains it well for you, if anyone has anything to add please feel free.

David

[RicktheRuler]

You may want to reread his NL section. Many players make the assumption that Doyle is advising you to continually go all in, raise left and right never let someong play back at you and so on.

If you read the entire section carefully, you will see that Doyle advises that if you raise preflop and it is checked to you, bet. But, he puts in a caveats about the type of players you are playing against and the texture of the board. Furthermore, he repeatedly suggests that you need to have the ability to "get away" from hands.

Doyle's genereal strategy is to be the most aggressive player at the table--I don't think anyone on this forum would tell you there in any money in passivity. However, it is each players personal responsiblilty to selectively direct that agression.

ps I wouldn't try the 'ol raise any two cards after I win a pot trick too often. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Komodo]

Thx Dave. And no, I wasnt sarcastic.

[LostMyCaseMoney]

The blinds are esentially the ante. 5/10 game 10 handed means the ante is 1.50 a hand.

[NiceCatch]

Sure blinds can be treated as antes, but they are so small in relation to usual stack sizes that overaggression to win them is foolish. When you are playing deepstacked (>120xBB), jamming to win blinds is a little ridiculous. I'm pretty sure the antes that Doyle referred to are much larger in relation to stack size than the blinds that most internet players play with.

I think the correlation between average dead money in the pot and aggression necessary is very strong.