Doyle philosophy troublesome

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Dan:

You wrote:

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I happen to agree with this. But the problem I have is that this material wasn't originally written with tournaments in mind.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi phish:

I really disagree. Let me tell you exactly what I think about the no limit section in SS (which is also the no limit section in SS2).

It seems to contradict itself. First off, you have the long introduction where Doyle says to play very aggressive and loose. That's what this thread is about. But when you finally get to the material on how to play the specific hands, the advice is now much more conservative and much more accurate in my opinion.

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. Furthermore, he knew that many of these opponents were playing very tight and thus would only be in there with a very good hand, like a big pair, that they would have trouble getting away from. Thus he was willing to call bets and raises with hands like small pairs, small and medium suited connectors, and Ax suited because he knew that the implied odds were huge.

He was also willing to initiate action with these holdings early in a hand. Frequently he would pick up a small pot. But occasionally he would flop something big and there were still a lot of chips left to win.

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

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi dogmeat:

This is just a classic semi-bluff. Notice that he states that "I can still fold if my opponent comes over the top." You can make these type of plays in limit, but they won't work as often.

best wishes,
mason

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi pzhon:

You hit the nail on the head. As long as you are the one who initiates the action and can get your opponent to fold a fair amount of the time, then you don't mind being the dog the small percentage of the time that you get called.

But if your opponent is the one making the big bet, it's poor poker to call knowing that you are taking way the worse of it. In limit, many of these calls are correct because of the large pot odds that you are getting. In no limit, the pot odds are often no where near what you need to continue in these hands. I think this is a distinction that Doyle does make but many people miss when they read the no limit section in SS.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Sheik]

First time poster. I read all the posts and I think one thing Doyle does that is not mentioned by any posters is he plays draws very similar to how he plays the nuts. So many times when he goes over the top of his opponents he has a made hand (set, straight, flush). But he will also play his draws in the same manner and he's not afraid to put all his chips in with either his made hands or his draws. So when he gets all his chips in the middle his opponent has to think to himself if his TPTK is a 2:1 favorite to a draw, or dead to runner runner if he has a set. Also by going all-in with his draws prevents players from bluffing him, a player would have to put him on a pure bluff to bluff him, b/c he knows Doyle is very likely to put all his chips in the middle. Remember Doyle rarely puts his chips in w/o outs. It also doesn't hurt to have some of the best poker instincts in the world.

[adios]

Mason writes about the No Limit strategy in Super System:

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

FWIW this is exactly right. The portion of that book on No Limit was written from the viewpoint that players had huge stacks relative to the blinds.

[PokerSlut]

Certainly there are plenty of max buy-in games where this strategy does not work. However, in higher stakes NL especially there is usually no max buy-in and you will often see tables full of people with very deep stacks, interspersed with a few people playing min buy-ins. I have also played in plenty of 1-2, 1-2-2, and similar NL games with no max buy in where the average stack sizes are $1k or more. Doyle's advice works pretty well in these games IMO.

[Kaz The Original]

I get to correct Mason!

Doyle (in Super System) says AX suited is horrible and rarely playable. Everything else you stated was accurate.

[Zim]

Very much appreciated, Vashtar.

(Particularly the warning about playing around with Shania ... how did you know I was planning to seduce her?)

Thanks,
Zim

[Zim]

Thanks Mason,

I have heard this a number of times that the advice in SS is more relevant for those playing with large stacks.

Intidimation at a 50 max BB buy in, or even 100 (I suspect) is a little tougher to come by.

That said, I have been experimenting with aggression even at my low stakes ($100 max), and I'm surprised by all the folds.

I think I might look into the art of semi-bluffing. Doyle makes a strong case for it ...

Thanks,
Zim