Opinions on Brunsons Super System NL:holdem? |
|
Posted Wed Dec 22, 2004 3:45 pm GMT by sog35
I got a chance to read a good portion of Doyles strategy on no limit holdem. Very interesting read. I agree with much what he said.
But I don't agree with his style with going all-in. He says he goes all-in many times knowing he doenst' have the best hand, or he has a drawing hand. Too me thats just suicide. Sure you may win pot 25%, but still seems like a big risk.
Would you take this approach on a very loose table? I think it would just back fire. any other opinions about his super system?
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Wed Dec 22, 2004 4:20 pm GMT by fonzerelli_79
he says many times in that section that it depends on who hes playing etc - he also mentions theres a lot of plays he doesnt know what hed do until they happened. He states that you should go with your 'gut' or first feeling
Posted Wed Dec 22, 2004 4:30 pm GMT by Nut Flush
Never read it. I know, shame on me.
If you go all in without the best hand, you've got to be pretty sure your opponent doesn't have it either. It's not something I would try on Party Poker $25 NL table with 8 people in the pot after the flop.
But given the right situation - For example you have a huge chip stack against a much shorter stack facing elimination right before the bublle in a MTT might be a good spot to do an "all in" bluff. If you lose, you're out some chips, if your opponent loses, he's out of the tourney.
Posted Wed Dec 22, 2004 5:51 pm GMT by Iron Butt
I'd say you're not likely to find enough players you can run over like Doyle suggests these days. As I understand it his theory was to win by making people fold, and there's now too many skilled players who will call you when you're beat and thrill seekers looking for any reason to go all-in anyway for that to work. Even the man himself has said it doesn't work for him anymore.
Posted Thu Dec 23, 2004 12:44 am GMT by K-rug
As fonzerelli_79 points out. It all depends on who you are playing against. As a general principal? Heck no. Against a loose table? Depends. To many variables for a carpet statement. Also, I forget, is he talking about tourneys or cash games?
Iron Butt, what size games do you play and are the only online? I ask because a lot of people will fold to an all-in. Unless your all-in is .50. You also have to put things in perspective. More people playing may mean more people will call but I'd have to think it means the same amount will fold as the ones who are learning to play better realize it isn't a good move.
Of course, I have no way of proving this theory. I am just basing it off of experience and my own swiss cheese memory. It just seems to kind of wash out in the end.
Posted Thu Dec 23, 2004 5:36 am GMT by Iron Butt
| K-rug wrote: |
Iron Butt, what size games do you play and are the only online? |
For NL, small tournaments, private, cardroom, and online. I've never heard of a 50 cent tourney LOL, I usually play $10-50 tourneys.
Just my opinion but I stand by it, stands to reason that the game has changed a bit in the last 30 years, especially in the last 3 LOL.
To be clear, I don't claim to be an expert, in fact the only reason I offered the comment was that I thought what I was saying was pretty much common knowledge. I don't claim to be a high stakes cash game player, but I doubt the topic starter is either. I realize of course that DB is these things, and of course it bears on the argument as to what if any of his advice applies to low stakes games. I'd say it would be less likely to apply, as you note all-in for $10 and $10K are very different things.
Also as mentioned DB himself has said that the style he wrote about in the book doesn't work anymore. Also FWIW there have been about a thousand sad stories posted here where someone should have folded to an all-in but didn't LOL.
So you're still all the way down with Doyle huh? All-in with T2? JT? ;P (Do the board smilies work for anyone else anymore?)
Don't get me wrong, I'd like to hear anything more you have to say on the topic.
Posted Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:10 am GMT by Scott1101
I completely agree with Iron Butt. . . strange handle though . . .
I'd be willing to bet that whenever Doyle puts out his Super System Version II book you'll see a lot of changes to that aggressive style he proposes. The game has changed a LOT since then and there are way more gamblers than poker students nowadays, especially at the lower limits but also at the higher ones too. Going all-in as much as he recommends is a sure way to get people calling with drawing hands that will eventually bust you out of every tournament or game you play. I think that Doyle found that out first-hand in the past few World Series of Poker tournaments he's played in.
Supersystem is still a valuable read but you can't ignore how much the game has changed nowadays. I'd be willing to bet that his second version will reflect that.
Posted Thu Dec 23, 2004 3:37 pm GMT by Iron Butt
| Scott1101 wrote: | | I completely agree with Iron Butt. . . strange handle though . . . |
Thanks. Someone who has an "iron butt" or "leather ass" is a player who's willing to sit and wait for good cards, a rock. I just thought it was funny.
Posted Fri Dec 31, 2004 12:03 pm GMT by Juliea344
| Iron Butt wrote: |
So you're still all the way down with Doyle huh? All-in with T2? JT? ;P (Do the board smilies work for anyone else anymore?)
|
T2 and JT are both hands that Doyle states in his book he'll almost never play so I'm not sure what you mean here....
but anyway, Doyle's super aggressive strategy referred to in SS is meant to work against good players (or tight players). He wrote it when most people who played poker played "the way you are supposed to play". These days there are so many people playing poker without the slightest clue that you can't attempt to roll them over...you will get rivered over and over again. Doyle says in his book himself not to use his strategy on weak players - a poor player can't be out-manuevered. He will only play solid hands against a poor player.
As for going all-in most of the time on a draw or with the worst hand, Doyle is referring to doing this once you are in a position of power. You have to establish a commanding presence at the table or a commendable chip lead for this to work. The object is to get the opponent to fold. If they have no reason to fear you, you better not try this tactic yet.
I was in a tournament where a guy went all-in on the turn, 4 to a flush, with 2 K's an the board. They guy who went all-in did so against a player with a 5x chip lead on him. Well, he caught his card, beat the 3 K's of the chip leader (me) and said "Doyle Brunson baby". No, he just got lucky. The tournament had just begun and Doyle would never recommend risking elimination on a flush draw. BTW, that player finished dead last in our league.
Posted Tue Jan 04, 2005 3:59 am GMT by JohnnyCache
Yeah, that part of super system is really only for playing when it's time to get cute with someone. . . if you believe doyle b. plays like that all the time, well...I got this bridge....
Posted Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:22 pm GMT by Iron Butt
Wow, this thread's back, almost missed it.
| Juliea344 wrote: | | Iron Butt wrote: |
So you're still all the way down with Doyle huh? All-in with T2? JT? ;P
|
T2 and JT are both hands that Doyle states in his book he'll almost never play so I'm not sure what you mean here....
These days there are so many people playing poker without the slightest clue that you can't attempt to roll them over...you will get rivered over and over again. Doyle says in his book himself not to use his strategy on weak players - a poor player can't be out-manuevered. He will only play solid hands against a poor player.
-snip-
The object is to get the opponent to fold. If they have no reason to fear you, you better not try this tactic yet.
-snip-
|
That was intended to be more of a joke, but DB did win both his WSOP titles with T2. As to JT, he describes it as "the best of the connecting cards" and says that if you take his advice, you'll be playing them often. Page 339 in my copy. Yes, he also describes it as a "trouble hand" later on. I dunno, take your pick. Again, intended to be a joke, not an attack on DB.
Other than that seems we pretty much agree. I like DB, I think he's a great player, I like SuperSystem, I merely think that regarding the subject of this thread, the person who asked the question might do well to not be quite as aggressive with all-ins as Doyle seems to suggest for the various reasons stated.
Posted Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:42 pm GMT by Juliea344
I'm going to have to dig up my copy and read page 339 again. 
Posted Thu Jan 06, 2005 3:02 pm GMT by QuietOne
I beleive, and I'll have to read it again, but most of the time he talks about putting someone else all-in. He says he can afford to lose a big one like that because he wins so many small pots. And he says he usually does it with some outs so if he gets called, he still has a chance.
But most of his examples are against players that he's seen weakness in and I agree. If a guy is afraid to bet big without the nuts, I'd do the same thing.
I have lent my copy out but I may have to get it back again and re-read it.
Posted Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:25 pm GMT by sergoyaa
Funny, I was just reading SS again yesterday, and I came to the NL section and asked myself the exact same question as the poster. IMO, DB's tactic is this:
If you are playing against tight players that will fold unless they have the nuts, continually play hyper aggressive (all-in, all-in). You will pick up numerous small pots, and when they finally have the nuts and call u, all those small pots will pay for your one big loss. Also, the 1 big loss may be 1 big win, since he recommends going all-in when you have a draw, so if you make 30% of your draws, then...well, you do the math.
You go all in ten times risking 100 dollars to win 10 in the pot. Each all-in, everyone folds. You've won 100 dollars. On attempt 11, you're called. You have a 1 in 4 chance let's say of making your draw and winning the all-in. If you loose, you are even money, but if you win, you are up $200!
Sounds pretty logical. Also, being hyper aggressive gets you a lot more action so when you will most likely be called when YOU have the nuts as well.
I personally don't play this way because as someone said earlier, the game has evovled and a lot of players can counter this tactic. After all, most everyone at the table has also read SS and will know what you are up to.
Posted Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:56 pm GMT by Jeremiah
To add my two cents doyle also refers to his "50%" gamble that his all in will get the pot right there, and if not he has what he calls an escape hatch. This is a good play i feel when combined with the advantages of developing the image of an overly aggressive player which gets you more action, and more money on your good hands. Of course the number of players you are trying to run over makes a difference as well as their looseness, because you dont want a call. As another post said todays players are super aggressive it seems.
Posted Mon Mar 14, 2005 7:39 pm GMT by gol4pro
I'm learning more and more, that there's a way to be a "tight maniac." Playing loose preflop simply is not the way to go. People are never going to believe your bluffs, and when you do hit a hand, you're probably not going to be payed off if everyone is scared of you anyway. If you play like a maniac and know how to set effective traps, then it is possible to play very profitably in this style at the right type of table.
Truth is, most super-aggressive players these days get slaughtered in most of the low-stakes games. They get called down, and their TPTK which they go all in with often gets called by bottom 2 pair, and they lose yet another buy in.
Doyle was an advocate of the super aggressive style. In the games he played, I'm sure it worked great. Super System is about Doyle's style-- thus advocating it.
Truth is, it's difficult to make this style work in most of today's games.
Posted Mon Mar 14, 2005 11:28 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
As always, it's a must to match your style to the game you're in. Playing tight-aggressive against loose players usually works, as long as you are betting your hand for value most of the time. I think a lot of people have the aggression part down, but the "tight" aspect is a little lacking. A lot of players I see will push hard with something like K9, hit top pair, and lose to the guy who is playing appropriately tight with KQ or AK.
|
|
