Mason v. Doyle, Jones, et al.

[Knockwurst]

Actually this is a post regarding the following comments made by Mason re Doyle:

First off I don't believe that Doyle's strategy works, but that's another issue.

You wrote:


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that is that by stealing so many smaller pots you gain an effective freeroll when you contend as a dog equity wise in an individual hand.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



and


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Added to that as cero said is being able to get paid off much bigger on monsters because so many players will adapt to his play by incorrectly giving too much action with good but non-nut hands.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Isn't this contradictory? If players are giving too much action with good hands how many pots is he really stealing?
______________________________________________

Is this really a contradiction? I thought Doyle was saying in his SS NL chapter that he makes a move on small pots, which gives the impression that he's doing a lot of stealing, but on the big pots when he has solid values, he makes a big bet hoping that the other players will put their money in thinking he's an action player based on his stabs at smaller pots.

I don't think one can argue that Doyle hasn't been successful with his style of play. Maybe one can say game conditions have changed, etc.

But like in chess, there are many different styles and one is not more valid than another, but it's good to be adept and familiar with all styles. Opening with c4, d4 or e4 has not been proven to be better in the realm of chess (the old there are many ways to shear a sheep theory). And I don't think one line of "correct" play is necessarily more correct than others in poker. As Harrington says in HOHI, there are many styles of play for one to chose.

P.S. I do question Doyle's notion that stealing the smaller pots some how gives him additional equity when he moves in with the worst of it in a bigger pot. The money you win in the smaller pots is just as much your money as the roll you started with. So how can the money won in small pots make a bet correct when it would not be for one who had not won those smaller pots? Nevertheless, I think that the action one gives in the small pots can make one's opponents misgauge your values in the bigger pots, giving one more action when he/she has the best of it.

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think one can argue that Doyle hasn't been successful with his style of play. Maybe one can say game conditions have changed, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I seem to recall Doyle making a statement in a recent WSOP ME that he tends to fair better against better players than against part-timers & amatures. When I read this section of SS I, it really put that statement of his into context. I think Doyle's "The small pots pay for my big pot attempts" style assumes that his opponents will notice and adjust to the subtlties of his play. The number of semi-pros going all-in UTG pre-flop with pocket 4's seems to be putting guys like Doyle off their game (and guys like Phil Helmuth on full-tilt /images/graemlins/wink.gif).

[ QUOTE ]
I do question Doyle's notion that stealing the smaller pots some how gives him additional equity when he moves in with the worst of it in a bigger pot. The money you win in the smaller pots is just as much your money as the roll you started with. So how can the money won in small pots make a bet correct when it would not be for one who had not won those smaller pots?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd also like to hear some of the wise, old-timers of the forum comment on this.

[Scary_Tiger]

Doyle should move up so they respect his raises more.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Knockwurst:

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think one can argue that Doyle hasn't been successful with his style of play. Maybe one can say game conditions have changed, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Game conditions have definitely changed. There was virtually no no limit cash games for at least 20 years, and I don't believe (perhaps someone might correct me) that in the ultra big game that Doyle plays they play any no limit hold 'em. Also, that section was written for cash games, not tournament play.

Best wishes,
Mason

[RussianBear]

If only 2+2 would publish a book on playing NL cash games.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
The money you win in the smaller pots is just as much your money as the roll you started with. So how can the money won in small pots make a bet correct when it would not be for one who had not won those smaller pots?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think what Doyle is saying is that getting -EV action in bigger pots is an inescapable part of stealing small ones. So they aren't separable. If you're going to be moving in with draws a lot, then sometimes you will get called and have the worst of it.

The argument would be that this strategy is +EV overall because your steals net you more than your lost equity, and that you cannot give up taking the worst of it in big pots without losing too much in stolen small ones.

Also, there is the chance of putting someone on tilt if they lose to your draw. Phil Gordon's LGB talks about this in the part about the "Biggest Online Winner" (Spirit Rock).

Mason, I think they do play no-limit in the biggest game, but it has a $100K cap, which is of course absurdly low for $2000/4000 blinds.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
If only 2+2 would publish a book on playing NL cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

they have done better in a sense

check the forums

there is much more than a book's worth of info coming out every month and it's less accessible to the competition

[BluffTHIS!]

Hi Knockwurst,

Those 2 comments you quote that Mason commented on were mine. What is being forgotten here regarding those stolen small pots giving an effective freeroll in the overall game when he contends in a big pot as a dog, is that he is not calling his stack off with draws, but raising with them, which as he says gives him 2 ways to win, i.e. they fold a good but non-nut hand (as in the case of someone limping with AA who doesn't get to reraise preflop), or if they call, he can draw out. This is the principle then, raising and having 2 ways to win, not calling allin bets with such draws. And he plays a set or 2 pair the same way, which especially on a drawing board is more likely to get someone with a worse made hand to call him suspecting such a draw move.

Also, Doyle is talking about game conditions with deep stacks, and in fact said that he has a hard time winning in games without deep stacks, because he can't put players to as tough a decision. As well, he said that after SSI came out, he had to adjust his play since he had given everyone in the world a clue as to how he was really playing.

With the conditions most of us play in online, with 100xbb stacks, such deep stack conditions are not met unless one has built up such a stack and is contending with another such stack. Also I am sure that Doyle has a tremendous table sense, and would not be employing such tactics on a table full of weak-tight set farmers who are in fold or trap mode as in found on bad tables online (which one shouldn't usually be playing on) when one trys to steal a small pot and meets with resistance.

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
If only 2+2 would publish a book on playing NL cash games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd buy 5 copies in advance just to help make it happen.

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi MCS:

[ QUOTE ]
Mason, I think they do play no-limit in the biggest game, but it has a $100K cap, which is of course absurdly low for $2000/4000 blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is pot limit Omaha.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Gelford]

According to Barry Greensteins homepage the gamemix looks like this:

No-limit and pot-limit with $100,000 cap:
(The cap is the maximum amount any player can lose on each hand)

No-limit Deuce-to-Seven single draw
No-limit Hold’em
Pot-limit Omaha
No-Limit Ace-to-Five single draw


$4000-$8000 limit games:

Omaha Eight-or-Better
Seven-Stud High
Seven-Stud Eight-or-Better
Deuce-to-Seven Triple Draw
Limit Hold’em

and occasionally Razz

[Mason Malmuth]

Hi Gelford:

If that's the case I stand corrected, but from what I hear no limit hold 'em is never mentioned. Of course, I don't hear very much.

Best wishes,
Mason

[Gelford]

It is just a list printed by Barry without any further explaination of frequencies

There is no mention of how often the NL set of games are played .. So while they are played, they still might not be the games of preference, so you might well be right Mason /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Best wishes
Paul

[popniklas]

MCS: Are you sure that the blinds are $2K and $4K when they play NL? I've always imagined them to be either $1K/$1K or $1K/$2K.

[Gelford]

Well the above I took from Greensteins page actually states 4K-8K blinds

[RussianBear]

Good point.

[RussianBear]

[ QUOTE ]
Also I am sure that Doyle has a tremendous table sense, and would not be employing such tactics on a table full of weak-tight set farmers who are in fold or trap mode as in found on bad tables online (which one shouldn't usually be playing on) when one trys to steal a small pot and meets with resistance.

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, he even says as much. Against weak players you don't get fancy, you just outplay them.

[popniklas]

[ QUOTE ]
Well the above I took from Greensteins page actually states 4K-8K blinds

[/ QUOTE ]

For the limit games, yes. Not the NL or PL games.

[Gelford]

Yep ... My mistake, I was a bit too quick there

[El Diablo]

Mason,

A Google search returns this from Daniel N. on his forum as the usual lineup (as of Oct '05) of games in the 4k-8k big game:


1. 7 Card Stud
2. Texas Hold'em
3. 7 Card Stud 8 or better
4. Omaha H/L
5. 7 Card Stud H/L Regular
6. Razz
7. 2-7 Triple Draw
8. Pot Limit Omaha ($100,000 cap)
9. No Limit Hold'em ($100,000 cap)
10. 2-7 NL Single Draw ($100,000 cap)

The NL games are 1k-2k blinds w/ 1k ante.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
The NL games are 1k-2k blinds w/ 1k ante.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://forumimages.footballguys.com/style_emoticons/default/eek.gif Is that a typo?

[El Diablo]

maurile,

No. Both Daniel N. and Barry G. have mentioned that.

[MicroBob]

Yeah. Barry mentioned that he likes the high ante because weak players can't get by with a tighter strategy.