Just how good is the SUPER SYSTEM??

Yesterday after I got off work, I stopped by a bookstore to do a little reading on some poker books. I decided to read Doyle's SS2. I indexed through the NL section of Holdem. As I began reading the first couple of pages, I had learned that he described himself as a very aggressive player, aggressive players tend to win more bigger pots than tight players, suited connectors that give you flush draws, OESD, DGSD win huge pots. Well I already knew those draws would give you more money but what was so interesting to find out was that he would push chips in with those drawing odds because it will give your foes more things to think about besides assuming your in a draw. Now I know that having pot odds is a big factor when your drawing out, but for those aggressive players its correct for them to bet a good amount size to the pot even if they are on a draw because: a) there's a good chance you oppenent will fold if they don't have top pair overpair. b) assuming they call, it will be hard for them to put you on a draw because your betting on the board.

Now here's my question:
Would it be poker politically correct to bet hard on draws in certain circumstances such as: a) you have top or middle pair. and b) you have two kinds of draws on the board.

IMO i think it is in these cases because your oppenents will have a tough time putting a hand on you.

I actually tried this today in cash games playing with a lot of suited connectors and gappers, and throwing aways all speculative hands and I found it to be more profitable. I made calls that normally i wouldn't make on the river and profited because I was able to get better reads and I doubled up quicker in a short amount of time. I now remember this is how i played when I was a Paradise and I jumped from 100 to 400 in just 3 weeks.

If I feel that the table is giving me folding equity I bet out if I had _a_ draw, the better the draw the better it is to me. Anybody know how big the FE should be if you assume that the opponent will call you down i.e. when you have a flush draw and nothing more. I dont know how to count these things yet and I feel that it would be important to know..

Well if you assume your opponent will call you down, then your fold equity is 0. If you want to bet your flush draws, your FE should probably be >30%, since you are ~4:1 and 4:1=20%. Anybody back this up or shoot it down?

I would assume that your increase in fold equity would have to be equal to or greater than your lost pot odds for it to be a mathematically correct play.

If you know your opp will fold to your large bet 50% of the time, and your draw will hit 30% of the times that he calls, then you are going to win the pot ~65% of the time. You can now bet 65% of the pot and still have it be a winning play in the long term, I think. all of this assumes that you are correct in your guess of your fold equity, and that a 65% of the pot bet will be big enough to make your opp fold without an actual hand.

I dont know if this is even remotely right though, so dont go away from this thinking that it is.

OFF5TH, The issue you're facing is bigger than betting draws aggressively. It's not whether you should be doing so in certain situations. It's why you should be. The bottom line is you should be putting all kinds of pressure on your opponents as often as possible when you decide they're scared. You want to be the one putting them to tough decisions. The reason Doyle wins big pots is because he's forcing his opponents to play back at him or fold. Just as an aside, and as a personal opinion, Doyle seems less effective against top pros these days because they put a counter strategy into action. I'm referring to something like Poker Superstars. That's another discussion though. The fact is he absolutely owns players who aren't ready for his real style of poker yet.

Let me tell you about a hand I was in two days ago at 100NL (yes I remember my hands). I was dealt K9d suited in the SB. Someone raised from UTG to $5. There were 3 callers to the raise before it got to me. Since I'm able to let go of a hand after the flop that's doggy, and I had pot odds, I called. I don't recommend playing this hand here for everyone, but I did. The pot was now $26 to the flop. It came out Jd 7d 6s. I checked with 4 to the flush, because you don't want to be aggressive with a draw out of position, especially with this many people in. It checked 3 times to the dealer just before me who bet $4. Now with two flush cards out there, two straight cards, this many people in, and a huge pot built already, I thought to myself "If anyone has anything good they would be unlikely to slowplay here, because of the pot, the flop, and number of opponents". It's right then that I decided even out of position, that I very strangely had more than my fair share of fold equity in this spot. If by chance someone was playing slow, I still had 9 outs. I made it $15 more to go, or $19 to the other 3 opponents. Guess what happened? Fold Fold Fold Fold. I win $30 without a pair against 4 opponents. Did someone have a better hand than me? Absolutely!

So to answer your question, you should bet strong any time your opponents are acting weak, and you honestly feel you aren't being slowplayed. Even more so with a lot of outs. This game isn't about betting what you hit when the cards come out. This is a game of betting when your opponent will fold, and keeping them around when you don't want them to fold.

I had the pleasure of playing short handed with another hyper aggressive player last night. You ever see two players who are being hyper aggressives go head to head? Fireworks man. Lots of huge pots. Most of them built on air. LMAO.

Riptide should be able to add a lot to this discussion as well.

Grest post - Rondavu

Quote:

---

Now with two flush cards out there, two straight cards, this many people in, and a huge pot built already, I thought to myself "If anyone has anything good they would be unlikely to slowplay here, because of the pot, the flop, and number of opponents".

---

This thinking is now part of my game and because of this I now pick up extra pots in both Ring & Tourny.

There are two ways of winning a pot:

1) Outbet your opponent
2) Win at showdown

If one chooses to only call bets while on draws, the villain will bet out the draw and eliminate odds - eliminating option #2.

To maximize winning percentage, play for both. Start by trying to outbet your opponent(s). If this doesn't work, maybe you have hit your draw.

*NOTE: This is not something I reccommend with 9 people to see a flop, only something I like doing with 3 or less.*

Let's say there are 4 people including yourself to a flop. You flop a nut flush draw. From here, you are 36% to win by showdown. Let's assume for arguments sake that you can outbet your opponent 25% of the time. This means that you will rely on a showdown 75% of the time. 36% of these showdowns you will win. Leaving us with a 52% pot winning rate. 27% Of the pots won will be large, quite large due to the "TPTK" betting style you had been portraying before your nut flush came to fruition.

With this style I have found that the pots won will be either:
1) Very large
2) Very Small

Pots lost with this style I have found to have been:
1) medium

The reason for this 'medium' loss is because the deciding factor on whether or not to bet on the river when you have no nut flush, is your read on your opponent(s). Generally, if you haven't won the pot by the flop or the turn, villain(s) is not going to be pushed aside by the river - unless they were drawing too. If you think they have stuck by ANY pair throughout your betting, position yourself with check/fold mode and submit to the 48% loss column.

In summary, I like to make two large bets into a pot when I have the nut flush draw on the flop. Bet out all other draws, middle pairs, small pairs. Check/Fold mode once no made hand comes on the river, this will eliminate any large lost pots. Betting this way is also a pattern that is not generally recognized by the majority of players as something that should be preached. I think it's a great way to disguise your hand and allow you to play more post flop very aggressively.

The way I see it, I'd rather win 52% of the pots I have a draw within, rather than calling all sizes of bets and winning 36%.

Another thing to consider is that Doyle is talking about high-stakes games. This type of strategy won't work as well at the lower-stakes because it's harder to push people off their good hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultimate George

Another thing to consider is that Doyle is talking about high-stakes games. This type of strategy won't work as well at the lower-stakes because it's harder to push people off their good hands.

---

I couldn't agree more.

I have only played 5NL online and this is not something that is profitable at all. I am yet to read up on this strategy, but I figured that it should work against good players.

Payette and George make Great points.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rondavu

you should bet strong any time your opponents are acting weak, and you honestly feel you aren't being slowplayed. Even more so with a lot of outs. This game isn't about betting what you hit when the cards come out. This is a game of betting when your opponent will fold, and keeping them around when you don't want them to fold.

---

More often than not, no one really has that great of a hand.

As to your read on weak bets and counteracting them: Saturday night I built up my 100NL stack at the casino to $750, and in the midst of it I came across the same scenerio. 3 People to a flop, I hit bottom pair, I am in MP and guy UTG bets 1/4 of the pot. Seemed hella weak unless he was dominating me, so I put out a pot sized bet and took it down.

I agree with your quote on Doyle in that the trick to TH'em is to put your opponent to the difficult decisions, not yourself. Just like in boxing - the best defence is a good offense. Diciplining oneself against resistance is the most difficult part.

My question to add is what if you come up against an opponent who reads you well or has a good hand eg set and pushes?
If aggression on the draw is good (i think it is) and can offer both big pots/fold equity what about when you are put to the test for your stack or bad odds?
I assume we just fold even with potentially a lot invested in the pot?

^^^
Fold absolutly.

When someone pushes AI, they are now putting you to the difficult decision. Your only move now becomes very mathematically simple if you think he has you beat - Do the math, how much more is it to call and is it worth it in pot odds to make your draw.

Never consider the amount invested. There are three stacks heads up:
1) Yours
2) Villain
3) Pot

The only important question you have to ask yourself does not include: "How much have I invested?"

It is only: "Is my next investment worth it?"

The point I was trying to make about the separate stack, being the pot, is that none of the chips in it are yours which should not have any merit in and decisions.

thats cool and what i thought. I just wondered if anyone would see playing draws aggressivly as being 'pot commited'
Not necesaily by stack sizes but the fact that u tried to push opp off hand.
Its cool because i rarely get my money in on draw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ultimate George

Another thing to consider is that Doyle is talking about high-stakes games. This type of strategy won't work as well at the lower-stakes because it's harder to push people off their good hands.

---

He talks about this too. Read the secion very carefully. There is a lot of GREAT stuff that's hard to miss.

Until recently, I used to subscribe to this 'pot commited' idea. I am never commited to anything, and I cannot lose what I do not invest. What I have put into the pot already, is not mine anymore.. I am simply trying to get it back.

The large pots that I lose tend to be ones in which I had been controlling the betting up until after my river value bet when my opponent min raises me. Most would say that I am pot commited with my flopped TPTK to call an additional 15% pot. More often than not, Opponent has been slowplaying me from the getgo and now and only now have I realized that I am beat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BankItPayette

Until recently, I used to subscribe to this 'pot commited' idea. I am never commited to anything, and I cannot lose what I do not invest. What I have put into the pot already, is not mine anymore

---

You may change your mind when the opponent is hyper aggressive, and your weak holding is likely the winner 2 out of 5 times against this opponent. You see the pot committed line thrown around at big money events where good players are usng a lot of aggression. There's a lot of overrepresentation going on. It committs you more often.

Isn't being pot committed more of a tourney thing than a ring thing?

yes but i meant it in the sense that you try to play aggressivly and then get pushed/huge reraised into. It was simply a way of saying do u give up if you have a lot invested when you no longer get odds.
The answer was yes

I have a better question.

Do I call pot sized bets with T4s if board is 4J8 with two of my suit, and I put opponent on AA? Do I push?

How about board 24J?

T.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telepath

I have a better question.

Do I call pot sized bets with T4s if board is 4J8 with two of my suit, and I put opponent on AA? Do I push?

How about board 24J?

T.

---

I would fold T4s preflop if it were me.

if it happens then consider the fact you have MORE outs if opp only has top pair. You then have 5 extra outs. Of course if opp has two pair/set then those outs are compromised. So yes you have more chance to call with a pair, but again its doubtful if you call a push.

Great thread.

What about the check raise on the draw? I personally don't like it, but if the player is willing to fire another shot (2/3 pot) at anything on the turn, then maybe it's sound?
That k9 d hand seemed like a great place for it because there was multiway and you're out of position. You got the read you needed.
And you were actually in a great position to make the move before anybody else put $ in the pot and got themselves committed.

With only 2 other people in that pot, would you play it the same way?
Or would you just bet out? Would you bet into the raiser?

Ok now that the first issue has been addressed, I'd also like to bring up another one. In the NL section of his book (SS2), he talks about any two cards that are connected to a 5-gap are considered to have double gut-shot possibilities. How many of you would consider playing suited gappers (having a gap from 2 to 5) instead of playing a speculative hands like AQ or AJ off. Someone test this out and see if it works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rondavu

I was dealt K9d suited in the SB. Someone raised from UTG to $5. There were 3 callers to the raise before it got to me. Since I'm able to let go of a hand after the flop that's doggy, and I had pot odds, I called. I don't recommend playing this hand here for everyone, but I did. The pot was now $26 to the flop. It came out Jd 7d 6s. I checked...

---

Doyle makes it a point of betting into the raiser and since you didn't you would be incorrect in checking here according to Doyle's theory. Additionally you checked raised on the hand which Doyle also frowns upon. Granted he stipulates he's had to alter his play since so many have read SS1, but let's not diminish his umbrella of protection in playing the way he does. I honestly think you did the antithesis of Doyle'e theory in this hand. Often he talks about going in with the worst hand and being fully aware of this but also recognizing he has an out. However, this is prefaced upon picking up the small pots allowing him to take this risk. So, in the hand you described he would have bet after the flop and then depending upong his read put the opponent in for all his chips.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Off5th

Ok now that the first issue has been addressed, I'd also like to bring up another one. In the NL section of his book (SS2), he talks about any two cards that are connected to a 5-gap are considered to have double gut-shot possibilities. How many of you would consider playing suited gappers (having a gap from 2 to 5) instead of playing a speculative hands like AQ or AJ off. Someone test this out and see if it works.

---

He has a caveat. He doesn't play a three gap suited. I forget the exact page but he does talk about 8c4c in one of the examples where he won't play the high and low end. So in some ways it contradicts his example in the double belly section since he uses Q6o as an example of a draw he might play but he won't play the high and low end in the 8c4c example even though you could have a DBB and flush draw on that hand. Perhaps he's dealing with a subtle level of decpetion that isn't so obvious to me. Or perhaps it is and I'm too lazy right now to admitt it.

Two things. But again nice thought process.
In full ring, i rarely call raises without the goods, eg if the pot is raised the only four unmade hands i call with that are broadway are AK/AQ/KQ/JT and the last two often have to be suited for me to consider it.
Otherwie as u suggest, i go round calling peoples raises as i do from playin 6 max with semi garbage hands 87 76 65 T9. If i think you miss you flop i get right in your face whether i hit or not so basicaly what im ooking for are opponents who like face cards too much and flops that i think they've missed. In this sense i can steal more pots becasue i know most/all players will raise with good broadway stuff and c-bet a low flop, at which point i punch ot a big reraise.
So yeah, calling with lower onnectors/semi connectors any two and bluffing (most of the time!) at low flops or flops opp missed are great ways to pick up pots that dont really belong to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

Two things. But again nice thought process.
In full ring, i rarely call raises without the goods, eg if the pot is raised the only four unmade hands i call with that are broadway are AK/AQ/KQ/JT and the last two often have to be suited for me to consider it.
Otherwie as u suggest, i go round calling peoples raises as i do from playin 6 max with semi garbage hands 87 76 65 T9. If i think you miss you flop i get right in your face whether i hit or not so basicaly what im ooking for are opponents who like face cards too much and flops that i think they've missed. In this sense i can steal more pots becasue i know most/all players will raise with good broadway stuff and c-bet a low flop, at which point i punch ot a big reraise.
So yeah, calling with lower onnectors/semi connectors any two and bluffing (most of the time!) at low flops or flops opp missed are great ways to pick up pots that dont really belong to you.

---

YOu know I've never thought of that before. Taking notes on opps. who like face cards so much that when then raise preflop they're almost certain to have face cards. I'm assuming you've done this successfully in a long period of time, but have there been occassions where you lost your stack because you read them wrong??

Yes. My typical play is to pump in a reraise 3 times that of their bet. A reraise against that tells me i need two pair or better here, as im often up against overpairs (the occasional lagg may have hit a big flop too) Quite often i end up playin for stacks when i think either opp has nothing or i have better. Its very marginal, ive pushed garbage into the nutz plenty of times but also had garbage pushed into me.
of course i compliment this by making trap plays. Often i call see raises with big pairs (especially KK/AA) and pump out big reraises on the flop. Because the know i bet with nothing i often get AQ to commit a stack on a queen high flop basically with 2 outs. It also means my sets get paid off because the chips get in on the flop. If opp calls i check to them or behind in hope of letting them bet into a pot they think they are winning. Stats show i dont actually lose any value here because i can get my river bets called because any intelligent player thinks its a bluff bcause i checked the turn behind them in many cases. Id only do this though when opp is more than one card behind. Any other times and i may get cracked

I got Super System 1 for x-mas bitches!

Is there new info in SS2 vs. SS1... I saw SS1 in the store the otherday... but decided not to buy it. Thinking it was not really cheap, and possibly out of date.

H/J:
I did get Mike Caro's "other" book: "Fundamental Secrets to Winning Poker" it's quite short and has very little strategy but still a nice little read. Very affirmative. Good stuff on non-poker like B/R mgt., tilt, playing your best, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

Yes. My typical play is to pump in a reraise 3 times that of their bet. A reraise against that tells me i need two pair or better here, as im often up against overpairs (the occasional lagg may have hit a big flop too) Quite often i end up playin for stacks when i think either opp has nothing or i have better. Its very marginal, ive pushed garbage into the nutz plenty of times but also had garbage pushed into me.
of course i compliment this by making trap plays. Often i call see raises with big pairs (especially KK/AA) and pump out big reraises on the flop. Because the know i bet with nothing i often get AQ to commit a stack on a queen high flop basically with 2 outs. It also means my sets get paid off because the chips get in on the flop. If opp calls i check to them or behind in hope of letting them bet into a pot they think they are winning. Stats show i dont actually lose any value here because i can get my river bets called because any intelligent player thinks its a bluff bcause i checked the turn behind them in many cases. Id only do this though when opp is more than one card behind. Any other times and i may get cracked

---

Great stuff. You are on to some fundamental concepts of winning maximized NLHE here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miffed22001

ive pushed garbage into the nutz plenty of times

---

LIES!

;)

Read UGs reply to this post. It says VOLUMES about the value of being able to play a wide range and splash around a little. Figure $15 is worth about 100ish hands worth of expectation from someone who destroys the game?

http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ic.php?t=25244

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strawman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rondavu

I was dealt K9d suited in the SB. Someone raised from UTG to $5. There were 3 callers to the raise before it got to me. Since I'm able to let go of a hand after the flop that's doggy, and I had pot odds, I called. I don't recommend playing this hand here for everyone, but I did. The pot was now $26 to the flop. It came out Jd 7d 6s. I checked...

---

Doyle makes it a point of betting into the raiser and since you didn't you would be incorrect in checking here according to Doyle's theory. Additionally you checked raised on the hand which Doyle also frowns upon. Granted he stipulates he's had to alter his play since so many have read SS1, but let's not diminish his umbrella of protection in playing the way he does. I honestly think you did the antithesis of Doyle'e theory in this hand. Often he talks about going in with the worst hand and being fully aware of this but also recognizing he has an out. However, this is prefaced upon picking up the small pots allowing him to take this risk. So, in the hand you described he would have bet after the flop and then depending upong his read put the opponent in for all his chips.

---

If you say so. I never cared much for Doyle. You properly illustrated why here. You just don't go deep with draws if you don't have to. Betting into 5 people as first act with merely a flush draw is just asking to be raised hard. So I bet, the opponent raises, and I push with zero fold equity as the opponent turns over JJJ as a heavy favorite? Ya ok Doyle.

It's as if he doesn't even care what someone has behind him. He has a draw, and that's that. Everyone else sucks. My money is in. It just sounds like something you would do in an even money situation such as having a flush draw and OESD, or a flush draw with two overs.

Putting all your money in on the flop every time you have a flush draw is wicked stupid.

Can someone please figure out the math behind what Doyle does, and conjure it with a perception of general fold equity? Does the fold equity really create the +EV. What about when someone picks up a read on you?

I my self havent been playing suited connectors a great deal and usually only when I have good position. I am thinking of changing that tho. I think anything 7-8 or above. It seems to me that if you play those suited connectors and are plawing a draw that you can get in trouble if there are 2 or three other people in on the hand. Maybe get burned by higher straight or flush.what do you guys think

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rondavu

Putting all your money in on the flop every time you have a flush draw is wicked stupid.

---

Although i have no data to back up how profitable it is I almost always bet any flush draw (2 on the board) in EP. Your fold equity is highest from EP as bets from LP often look like trying to buy the pot. A strong bet from EP says 'I have a hand and don't want to get draw out on'. Any reraises then play accordingly but I will take bad odds as you have masked your draw and will have good chance to check-raise later (here I dont mind being up against top set as i'll only be playing the really big pots if I have them beat).

Also checking in EP can lead to difficult decisions if its checked round and you think that the CO or button is trying to buy the pot, you will almost certainly get bad odds to chase, a check raise could get very expensive and you may have to throw away the best hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rondavu

Putting all your money in on the flop every time you have a flush draw is wicked stupid.

---

Although i have no data to back up how profitable it is I almost always bet any flush draw (2 on the board) in EP. Your fold equity is highest from EP as bets from LP often look like trying to buy the pot. A strong bet from EP says 'I have a hand and don't want to get draw out on'. Any reraises then play accordingly but I will take bad odds as you have masked your draw and will have good chance to check-raise later (here I dont mind being up against top set as i'll only be playing the really big pots if I have them beat).

Also checking in EP can lead to difficult decisions if its checked round and you think that the CO or button is trying to buy the pot, you will almost certainly get bad odds to chase, a check raise could get very expensive and you may have to throw away the best hand.

---

I agree this in just about all spots. You need to bet for information anyway. As said, you cant put CO/button on hands if you check. So a dcent bet in ep will at least give you some idea of later positions hands.

If twosevoff says im on to stuff then im pleased! SHit, i think it was you're operation i was reading the other day and the money being made was large (even for me to consider) so if im playing right thanks. :)

Yes fnord, i pushed 22 into quad Queens once as well as some other hilarious bluff calls :(