Doyle philosophy troublesome

[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.

[Zim]

Lol!

Thats exactly what happened to me as well.

Twice.

The next night, I played my normal game and watched with amusement a guy who had quadrupled his buy-in using a maniac aggresso style.

I just waited for good hands, ignored whatever he did ... and got the better of things.

That said, I'm still amazed how far you can get by just being aggressive.

And I think there is some merit to the view that aggression, as a whole, might be a positive EV play.

Best,
Zim

[cpk]

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.

This very sentence was exemplified in Rounders.

[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