]]>
]]>
Statistics: Posted by neverslowplay_AA — Tue Feb 15, 2005 12:23 am
]]>
I agree with your comments to the part of SS2 you quoted, it just doesn't work for small stakes online play. However, you can adopt it by applying the same principles just don't to the same degree. I'm still experimenting, but I've had great success lately with well timed bluffs and semi bluffs(as in high aggression). I had a period with cold cards, and not hitting on the flop. So the only thing that has kept me floating is stealing pots.
In the beginning I usually just tried to steal with a potsized bet on the flop, and if I got called I would check/fold. However I'm getting better at putting people on draws, so with no flush I can usually take down the pot at the river, and sometimes the turn. Depends on the hand. Anyway, I'm rambling here, I'm just a bit excited after having a revelation or two in the poker department today.
I especially look forwards to the part about playing your stack in Reubens book, something I really don't know anything about (except the obvious).
So, let me just get those books so I can read them, and I'll join in on dissecting SS2.
Statistics: Posted by Soul — Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:32 pm
]]>
I think the advice he gives is pretty much for big games with large stacks, where going all-in is a huge move, much more powerful than we can imagine playing low relatively high blind/low buyin games on the internet.
I've also read Doyle himself quoted as saying (and I paraphrase) "I'm not so aggressive any more because after people read my book they started to call me more and I had to show them a real hand".
I wouldn't advocate this approach on the internet unless you're playing with someone weak and/or is betting scared money (i.e. the relatively tame all-in will frighten the wits out of them). I would think that the playing style is hugely more effective face to face, as well.
You can tell which people have read Doyle's section and got straight onto the internet. They're called 'Maniacs' and all you have to do is sit tight and wait for a big hand.
If you were playing $1/$2 NL and you had a stack of $1000 instead of $100, you'd be a lot less likely to call an all-in headsup, and this is the way I reckon that NL should be played in its purest form.
However, balls of steel (and the knowledge of where you can find a game like this) required!
Just my 2p on it.
Statistics: Posted by tetsuo — Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:19 pm
]]>
What book? For the first one, I suggest SS2, since it just came out and we're all going to be digesting it together for the first time. Plus, I just bought it, read parts of it, and have something to say about it.
I'll start out with just a very general introduction to how Brunson says that he wins at NLHE. He bets and bets and bets. When he has a hand, he bets. When he doesn't, he bets. If he flops a set, he bets. If the flop misses him completely, he bets. And he bets pretty big. He goes all-in on a regular basis. He wants his opponents to know that he is willing to get all-in with them. Knowing this, they are not willing to call him down with anything but premium hands. Since premium hands are rare, he takes down a lot of small pots. Eventually someone will call him all-in, and as he candidly admits, most of the time when that happens he has the worse hand. But he has won so many small pots that they've already paid for the big ones. And he generally has a few outs, so that he will suck out and win against better hands a certain percentage of the time.
I have a couple of points I want to make about what I've read so far.
(1) This is a very dangerous book for a new player (like myself) to read. Especially for online poker. Especially at Gaming Club!! None of this is Brunson's fault, though. He tries to be very clear that he is writing only for people playing against other skilled opponents. Your opponents need to be able to lay down a good hand when the flop makes it look like they might be beat. Also, to play this way successfully your opponents also need to believe that YOU are a good player.
If your opponents are idiots, they will call your big bets too often and you will lose. If your opponents think you are an idiot, they will have no respect for your big raises and will, again, call you down too often.
My thesis is that there are so many idiots on Gaming Club, and online generally, that Brunson's style of play is generally going to lose you money. So if you generally play online, especially at lower limits, be really careful about reading this book!!
(2) Brunson says he would rather be dealt AK than AA or KK. Not because it's a better hand, but because it's easier to get away from it. Interesting thought.
(3) Brunson says that one of his favorite plays is to call down a big preflop raiser with hands like
![[6d]](https://livepokerforum.com/images/smilies/6d.gif "The Six of Diamonds")
[5d] or even ![[7h]](https://livepokerforum.com/images/smilies/7h.gif "The Seven of Hearts")
[5h]. If the flop comes big, it's easy to fold and take a small loss. But on a ragged flop, the guy betting his AA or KK is going to think he's still ahead, so he'll bet out, and then Brunson will come over the top for all his chips if he caught even a decent part of the flop. The poor preflop raiser has no clue whether Brunson flopped two pair, a straight, or just bottom pair or a straight draw. Most of the time he'll muck and Brunson takes down another pot.Crazy stuff. Exhilirating to think about. But probably a loser if you try it at the $20 tables at Gaming Club.
Hoping for comments, follow-ups, and other thoughts from people who are reading SS2 (and SS1 too, of course, which I have never seen).
Statistics: Posted by k3nt — Mon Feb 14, 2005 2:08 pm
]]>