Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

[ QUOTE ]


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

Hi Bluff:

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


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



LOL. I'm sitting here wondering what your reaction would be if Lee Jones said that about Dan Harrington without any reasoning behind it.


[/ QUOTE ]

My reasons have appeared at other times on these forums. It has to do with the fact that no limit is much more of a trapping game than other forms of poker. So it should be reasonable to expect good players to trap someone for all their money who is overusing a "Take it Doyle" type strategy.

There is also a second reason. If you read the no limit section in either of Doyle's books (since both sections are essentially identical) you will notice that while he advocates an extremely aggressive strategy in the very long introduction, once he starts talking about specific hands he's much more conservative (as I think he should be).

I suspect that what happened is that in Doyle's enthusiasm for no limit hold 'em he unintentionally overstates certain aspects of the game. However, when he gets into specifics these aspects are handled more realisticly.

MM

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


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

Hi Bluff:

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


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



LOL. I'm sitting here wondering what your reaction would be if Lee Jones said that about Dan Harrington without any reasoning behind it.


[/ QUOTE ]

My reasons have appeared at other times on these forums.


[/ QUOTE ]

I read no further. That's all I was looking for. Thanks.

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Hi Mason,

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe I'm missing something but if I understand this correctly according to you and Gordon against BOW you can get in cheaply and then he will frequently make a giant bet... wouldn't a simple counter strategy be to wait until you have flopped a very strong hand and then just call BOW when he makes one of his giant bets.


[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say you could get in cheaply, and I'm not sure what "cheaply" means to you. Virtually every pot in BOW's typical game is opened for a pot raise.

And the thing that keeps your simple counterstrategy from working is that BOW can't be counted on to overbet every time in a particular place. He uses his hand reading skills to find the proper timing for overbet bluffs, overbets for value, and 2-way bets. That said, it seems that the players who have done the best against him (that I have seen) have been willing to call these bets with medium-strong hands such as TPTK. There is another danger to contend with for those who employ this strategy: the high variance in a very high-stakes game. BOW is more heavily bankrolled than all or virtually all of his opponents, which complicates things for them, although it doesn't seem like it would help him in the long run if his strategies are flawed.

Anyway, his game has been dissected extensively in other forums, and I assume you know which search terms to type in if you want a more informed and complete discussion. I'm now officially in over my head in this one.

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

can i ask where he plays, so as to observe?

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Hi ceri:

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't say you could get in cheaply, and I'm not sure what "cheaply" means to you. Virtually every pot in BOW's typical game is opened for a pot raise.


[/ QUOTE ]

Gordon says that part of the basic philosophy that BOW employs is to:

[ QUOTE ]
Get in the pot cheaply

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And the thing that keeps your simple counterstrategy from working is that BOW can't be counted on to overbet every time in a particular place.

[/ QUOTE ]

That certainly not what Gordon implies. As I said, Gordon's analysis of what BOW is doing is confused.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Hi Mason,

Gordon's analysis of BOW's strategy is indeed overly simplistic and in error in some spots. This is because as cero said, there is more to it, and BOW is not just operating according to the parameters of some robotic system where a certain type of hand hits a certain type of board, and he always takes a certain action. And like cero said, that game, especially since it usually is short, is more often opened for a raise unless folded around to the BB, although by "cheap" one could mean paying the price of a standard raise (which I think is accurate).

Gordon's mathematical analysis is also flawed, and if it were accurate, would indicate BOW's strategy is flawed as well. In the example and table he gives where the preflop raiser has AK or JJ maybe and then BOW has either: Ts8s, 77, 9s5o, or 85o, and a board of Ax,7s,6s comes down, it is clear that removing 95o from the mix of hands increases BOW's EV greatly. Also, removing that 1 hand from a group that will be played in a like manner, also negates Gordon's suggested counter strategy of calling a push with KsQs, because doing so then is in fact slightly -EV with 95o out of the mix of BOW's hands played that way on that flop.

Also notice that in the example given, with an A on the flop, is what gives those other hands so much fold equity, because now QQ/JJ or even KK will have to think long and hard about calling, because besides the hands Gordon suggests, BOW is often also playing an A with a weak kicker or two pair that way as well.

All of this is not to say that BOW is playing perfect which he's not, even for shorthanded, but that any analysis is much more complex and can't be given in a couple pages or so like Gordon did. Similary any counter-strategy must be more complexly analyzed. It should also be noted, that besides playing a range of hands that hard on the flop, BOW is often just smootcalling with air or a very marginal hand such as bottom pair or a backdoor draw of some kind, and that he will often make a move on the turn instead with same, or push the river when he makes some kind of sick runner runner hand or slowplayed a big hand. I have also seen BOW slowplay overpairs to the board including AA like that to the river, although sometimes he traps himself doing that by assuming the other player is overplaying a hand that BOW can beat.

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

[ QUOTE ]
can i ask where he plays, so as to observe?

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL. Not sure why we've been treating it like it's a secret. BOW is Mahatma/Spirit Rock/AplusGame247 on UB. He also supposedly plays on the account "Arbitrary", and KaneKungFu123 has said on numerous occasions that he thinks that several people including Prahlad (Mahatma etc.) use that account. On Prima, he is known as "Zweig". Do a search on "Mahatma" if you want more info.

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Mason,

Having played many, many hours of 25-50NL against "BOW," I can assure you that his approach is nowhere close to as simplistic as described in this thread. He varies his style of play more than just about anyone in the big games (posts have said he plays up to 200-400NL apparently) and he plays completely differently against different opponents. He also adjusts very well based on calling/folding frequencies of opponents. This is why a strategy of "wait for him to bet big when you flop big" is not one that works. Many have tried it, or variations. As for "getting in the pot cheaply," as cero said, the pot is opened w/ a pot-raise near 100% in these games and there is a pre-flop pot reraise quite often.

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Hi Masked Man:

I'm sure it's not. I'm just going by what Gordon say in his book which is:

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the basic philosophy I've seen BOW employ:

1. Get in the pot cheaply.
2. Massively overbet with some premium draws.
3. Massively overbet with the nuts or the best hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

As you can see that's pretty simple, but there's no doubt in my mind that BOW plays in a much more sophisticated manner than this.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Mason,

My guess is that Gordon probably has a more sophisticated understanding of the BOW strategy than his analysis in his book would imply. My feeling is that Gordon "dumbed down" his analysis to make it more accessible to the average reader of his book. I could be wrong, but Gordon seems like a guy that would have a better understanding than he portrayed.