Doyle philosophy troublesome

[Zim]

Received Supersystem for Christmas.

Rather enjoyed the book as it pretty much recommends doing everything I wouldn't at a poker table.

To whit:

"I'd say over 50% of the time ... when all the money goes in, I've got the worst hand. Obviously, I couldn't overcome that unless I had something to compensate for it. And my compensation is all those small pots I've picked up."

"I've got that pot paid for with all the small pots I've picked up. And when I play the big pot ... it's a freeroll."

Reminds me of the gambler who was "playing with the casinos money" after a few wins ... then loses it all due to negative expectation wages.

"After I've won a pot in No Limit ... I'm in the next pot - regardless of what two cards I pick up. And if I win that one, I keep playing every pot until I lose one."

Yikes.

Any thoughts?

Best,
Zim

(That said, Invader Zim recognizes superior intelligence ... and has been applying Doyle strategy to the best of his abilities. Results have been excellent, which is really quite disturbing.)

[TStoneMBD]

this book was written during a period of time in which poker players had no sophisticated knowledge of percentages or strategics at all. doyle clearly does not enter a pot regardless of his hole cards after winning a pot any longer. back in that period it may have been correct. players were so primitive that doyle said he could beat a game without ever looking at his cards. he cannot do that any longer except when playing against people who just learned the game that day.

as for him freerolling with bad hands. look at gus hansen's style of play. getting it in with the worst hand is his trademark. he makes up for these -ev plays by all the pots he takes down.

[Sluss]

Remember this advice is against good tight aggressive players. Doyle points out in the book this will not work against weak players. Your going to have to show weaker players your cards.

And Doyle still plays many hands without looking at his cards. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Dan Mezick]

This approach is all about developing a psychological edge, that's all it is.

Brunson is not comfortable (in SUPERSYSTEM 1.0) playing in a way that is less than dominating.

Using the small pots to finance the all-in coin flips is simply a tactic that supports that goal.

He wants to give action! So he gives what looks like loose action, but it is not.

He often has the best draw after the flop. Often the best draw wins, and it's sweet when the pot is multi-way.

Alot of people say SUPERSYSTEM1.0 is obselete in the tournament era, but a careful read reveals many modern-day, tournament applicable Brunson gems.

[duker41]

"this book was written during a period of time in which poker players had no sophisticated knowledge of percentages or strategics at all."

You must be forgetting the pages of statistics Mike Caro provides for Super/System, that Sklansky also wrote for Super/System, and that the statistical ideas used in poker have been around for a long time. That being said, Doyle's motivation may also have been something that Slim mentions in his book, a desire to be seen as an action man. They grew up in a gambling world that involved more then just poker and having a rep as a tight person wouldn't help when you're trying to sucker a guy into a bet.

[Sredni Vashtar]

DB "I'd say over 50% of the time ... when all the money goes in, I've got the worst hand. Obviously, I couldn't overcome that unless I had something to compensate for it. And my compensation is all those small pots I've picked up."

DB "I've got that pot paid for with all the small pots I've picked up. And when I play the big pot ... it's a freeroll."


That's the Shania concept at work.

Z:"Reminds me of the gambler who was "playing with the casinos money" after a few wins ... then loses it all due to negative expectation wages."

In casino games making a negative expecation bet is negative, period. It just gets subtracted from the bottom line. There is no meta game(1).
Shania doesn't go there.

In poker what happens this hand affects the next hand and so forth. (Im talking multiway or exploitive strategies not headsup optimal) negative plays in isolation can lead to larger overall profits. In poker making positive expecation plays can lead to lower overall profits.

But learn to make the correct play in isolation. It's very important. (Perhaps even underrated) Fooling around with Shania may seem like a tempting prospect, but she can get you in trouble. Exploitive strategies are highly exploitable in themselves.

SV.





1)I am excluding cover bets made for pro players masking activity or shooting for comps.

[lil_o]

My only problem with Doyle's philosophy is when you play that way you will probably experience higher variance in your bankroll. By taking risks you ultimately will win bigger pots, but you won't necessarily get the best of it every time.

When you sit tight you will have a much lower variance but you are less likely to double up through someone.

[phish]

The part about playing any hand after winning one is dumb, of course. But the other part makes sense. It's not so much a philosophy as a description of why he wins given the way he plays. He plays a very aggressive style and manages to steal a lot of small pots. But occaisionally, he'll get trapped so that when the other player calls him, he's likely to have the worse of it. Nonetheless, he still manages to win because all those small pots finance these big gambles and occaisionally he'll draw out in these big gambles and hence be viewed as a lucky idiot.
This concept is, in my opinion, even more important in limit than no limit, especially in the bigger tougher games. The best players at these games do not wait for group 1,2 hands and trap their oponents. They play aggressive and manage to win a lot of small pots from the weaker, tighter players. But occaisionally, they'll look like idiots by betting with nothing into a strong hand. But overall, you cannot be successful above 150/300 unless you can play/think like this.

[dogmeat]

Although you quote the passage, without reading and understanding the entire chapter Doyle's strategy is being taken out of context. There is more there than the average reader gets. Another aspect of this strategy, and I am paraphrasing, follows:

}{You have to understand the aggression factor here. When a fellow makes a small bet at the pot on the flop and I think he is weak, I'm either going to get all my chips in the middle, or raise enough that he knows he is going to have to get all in. When I bet $5K and he only has $20K, he knows that he is going to have to get all in on this hand by the river. I'm putting him to a decision to get all in, but I don't have to get $20K into the pot. I can still fold if he comes over the top, but he is constantly being put to the decision of whether to get all his chips in the pot. That way I can keep picking up the small pots.}{

Dogmeat [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]

[djhoneybear]

I think Doyle's philosophy still holds water today. I would not attempt these strategies in a limit game (especially low limit). It is much harder to intimidate an opponent when you can't threaten his entire chip stack. This style is used by some tournament pros but I wouldn't recommend it unless you are very skilled and know how the players at your table play. Having tried this system of play at a small stakes no limit table on-line (max buy in or $25). I had great success for several hours, getting up to $100 and have most players scared when I came over the top at them. The thing that has been neglected in this discussion is Doyle's comments about switching gears. I didn't switch gears and let a couple of players double up on me when they started only playing premium hands. I left the table up $15.