Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

A poster on our forum asked an interesting question about Phil Gordon's discussion in his Little Green Book about an internet player he call BOW (biggest online winner). BOW's MO is to massively overbet pots post-flop in no-limit cash games, with both made hands and big draws. Gordon presents the BOW strategy as an effective cash game strategy, but one that's too volatile for tournaments. The poster questioned whether the BOW strategy is different from Kill Phil, if so, how, and can it be effective in tournaments. My reply follows:



A lot of people have asked on various forums if the Kill Phil concepts are applicable to cash games. In most cases, someone (not Lee or I) has answered the query with a statement to the effect that KP is only applicable to tournaments. Lee and I have discussed this between us at length, disagree with this contention, and think it’s time to address this issue.



The basis for the KP strategy is the all-in move pre-flop. This is tailored to, and works best in, tournaments because the escalating blinds and antes at the later stages of tournaments make pre-flop pots worth fighting for. For the inexperienced player, avoiding post-flop play against more experienced and/or talented players is an added benefit. However, the real power behind the strategy is the effect of putting a player to a decision for all his chips, and the power of fold equity when he backs down. Whether in a tournament or a cash game, an opponent has to think hard when faced with an all-in decision. The benefits of the possession of the attributes of fearlessness and aggression become quickly evident to KP players.



In our post-flop section, we touch on some applications of the all-in move at later points in a hand. In fact, if the predominant game ever changes to something like pot-limit pre-flop, no-limit post-flop, as we lobby for in our conclusion, we’ve already discussed the possibility of writing another book on the applications of the KP strategy in post-flop play.



BOW essentially is using a variant of the KP concept in cash games. By waiting until after the flop, he’s given the pot time to grow to something worth fighting for, similar to pre-flop pots in the late stages of tournaments. Then, when the flop dictates, he put his opponents to the big decision. The key is to play the same way with both a made hand and with a draw. This is also a key to Kill Phil, in which, when played correctly, opponents don’t know whether you have aces, suited connectors, or something in-between. (I’ve come to regret the suggestion we made in KP of betting 16th of your stack with aces or kings. I think it limits the effectiveness of the strategy. But, that’s another discussion,)



As to whether his strategy would work in tournaments, my position is that it would. I don’t agree with Phil’s contention that it’s too volatile for tournaments. Tournament strategies are all about courting volatility. Grinders don’t win tournaments. In fact, I think that KP practitioners can greatly increase their effectiveness in tournaments by seeing more flops, after learning to effectively employ Kill Phil in post-flop play. Add some small ball effectiveness to that mix, and you find a really dangerous tournament player. Conversely, KP practitioners should find many uses for the concepts, both basic and advanced, that they’ve learned from Kill Phil in cash games.

Blair Rodman

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Hi Blair:

While BOW may be using a very effectice cash game stategy, I believe the analysis of it that appears in The Little Green Book is inaccurate. That's because Gordon treats very different hands such as sets, gut shots, and straight flush draws as being equally likely when in reality that won't be the case.

It's also clear to me that a KP type strategy could be effectice for cash games as long as that person keeps his stack size small. (See Getting Started in Hold 'em by Ed Miller.) However, when the number of chips gets large relative to the blinds, the penalty for losing a pot becomes too great relative to the award of winning the blinds. (There is an analysis of this in Harrington on Hold 'em.)This is, as you know, consistent with the advice in your book.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Yes, when I first read Phil's description of the BOW, I thought it was mind blowing, but then I thought of how frequently small gutshots appear versus how frequently you end up with a set. The idea of playing draws and made hands is clear, but the exact distribution of how he plays has to be very confusing. If he just pushed every time he had a gutshot it would be clear just calling every time would show a profit.

I think the reason Kill Phil's strategy will primarily be applied to tournaments is because of how frequently you have to play in a position where you don't have even 20 BB's in your stack. When you have more than 50 BB's I think you really have to pull out some other tricks.

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Hi,

Let's look at a tangible example to try to get a handle on what I think Blair is saying. This hand came up at the first level of the recently concluded Aussie Millions Main Event which I was fortunate enough to win:

blinds of 50/100; average stack size around 20,000 (starting chips). UTG I make it t225 to go with 7h 6h and got called in 4 spots-pot size now just over t1000.

Flop: 4c 5h Qh

I check and next player bets t1000 and gets 3 callers to me. There's now t5000 in pot and it's my move.

What's your play here?

My play here was to move in with the whole t19000 I had left. This play is derived from principles discussed in Kill Phil. Either I'll win this pot now and add 25% to my stack, or I'll be about even money against 2-pair, if they have the courage to call and put their tournament on the line. Even against top set, I'm 40% to win this pot, and based on the betting, the board, and my reads, I was pretty sure that no set was out. I was also confident that a big flush draw would have difficuly calling this bet with only 9 likely outs as any overcards weren't likely to be outs considering my all-in move. Importantly, I would have played this hand the same way if I had a set.

The first player folded AA, and the next TT; the 3rd player took 6 minutes before releasing 4-5, and the last player quickly folded a big flush draw. I added that t5000 to my stack and never looked back. Fold equity was on my side and was rewarded in this instance.

Psychologically this play reaped big dividends. It put my opponents on notice at a very early stage that all my chips (and theirs) are in play at any time, and that I'm fearless. It also gave me the early chip lead at my table, a platform for continued aggressive play, especially effective with their now established trepidation.

Would this play be justified in a cash game with similar blinds and stack sizes? I believe it would for the same reasons discussed above. I think this is the type of play that the BOW makes. He also makes the same play with a made hand, such as a set. I think this is a winning formula either for tournaments or for live play.

BTW, this isn't a new concept. Doyle's been playing this way for years and I don't think anyone challenges his success.

Regards,

Lee

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Is the stack size of other players at all relevant? In a large stacked cash game, there may be more players willing to call. Does this fact affect the results?

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Hi Biloxi,

In the above tournament example all stacks were very deep at around 20,000 each. For cash game comparison, I made the same assumption. It's true that your fold equity is better in tournament play, but this is still a very difficult call to make in a cash game without a set.

If the aces get stubborn and play, you're a 56% favorite and don't mind getting played with. You're a very slight favorite over bottom two pair and a very slight dog against top two, but the dead money in the pot makes it profitable to play against these hands. Flush draws are unlikely to call in this spot.

The one hand that presents a problem is a set, although some players will fold bottom set faced with a decision for this much money. Even then, you're 40% to win a showdown against any set. The fold equity, image, and intimidation factors more than compensates for this IMO.

I'd like to clarify one point from my prior post. Kill Phil in its basic form is primarily a pre-flop strategy. This is to keeplesser-experienced players from having to make tricky post-flop decisions. As Mason correctly points out in his post above, this strategy is effective in tournaments due to the escalating blind structure, but is ineffectual in cash games due to the relatively small blinds compared to average stack sizes in most cash games (hence his statement that KP would be effective in cash games if your buy-in is small ala Miller).

I agree.

What Blair and I are talking about here, however, is extending KP long ball tactics to post-flop play, as in the example I provided from the Aussie Millions. Once players learns how to use KP and gain experience, they can incorporate long ball into their overall game including post-flop play, mixing it in with the excellent small ball tactics as described in books such as HOH I & II (which we whole-heartedly recommend) to become a complete player. The combination is dynamite. Even a lot of the top pros haven't fully developed their long ball game for fear of going broke--an error in our judgment.

Regards,

Lee Nelson

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Hi Lee:

I think you miss the point. I'm sure BOW is making precisely this type of play. That is he's over betting the pot with his very good hands such as sets and with his very good draws such as the straight and flush draw hand that you give in your example.

But that has nothing to do with the anlysis that Gordon gives in his book on pages 246-248. I find it very hard to believe that BOW is just as likely to hold 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] as he is to hold 7[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]7[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] in this example because it seems very unlikely to me that BOW would even play the 9[img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]5[img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img] given that Gordon has an ace-king and would not let BOW into the pot cheaply which is one of the stated requirements for BOW's strategy to be successful.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Hi Lee:

[ QUOTE ]
What Blair and I are talking about here, however, is extending KP long ball tactics to post-flop play, as in the example I provided from the Aussie Millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

It sounds like you and Blair have another book to do. We'll be looking forward to it.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Hi Everyone:

Just so there's no confusion, while I think that Gordon's analysis of BOW (Biggest Online Winner) in his Little Green Book is flawed, I do think that the Little Green Book is pretty good overall.

best wishes,
mason

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Hi Mason,

I see your point and how your frequency argument applies. Thanks for the clarification.

Kind regards,

Lee

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

hey guys is there somewhere I can get a list of the errors in the first printing?

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Yes, contact me through the KP website and I'll e-mail them to you. They're minor.

Regards,

Lee

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Hi Lee,

Congrats on the win. Your play with an open-ended straight and flush draw and lots of chips left to scare them with is as standard as it gets in NL poker. This is not a good example of the types of moves that BOW will make; virtually all winning NL cash players at his level would do the same thing, so it in no way sets him apart.

On that flop, the real "BOW" will push a gigantic overbet into the pot with any draw with 8+ outs, with bottom 2, and with an overpair with regularity. He will also occasionally push there with AQ, AK, 87o, 65s-backdoor flush draw, air, etc. In your hand, you could practically call an all-in bet on the flop, let alone make one. BOW makes this play with far weaker hands--that is what makes him tough to play against. It's not as if you can say, "BOW's big raise represents a hand that either has my TPTK crushed, or is about even with." You know that he is making that bet with some frequency while drawing to 3 outs, if you call. Also, he doesn't just make this play on the flop; he will overbet the river with air, the nuts, and everything in between, and his timing is excellent because of his excellent hand-reading ability.

In the hand you played, you had a win-win situation, because your draw was so monstrously big as to often be the outright favorite HU vs. any of the hands out there, and certainly be no worse than 40% against one other hand that might conceivably call. Hand-reading is unimportant--you are going to raise here every time, and if you do, your whole stack is committed due to your huge pot equity, so you obviously should put it all in.

What BOW does is rely on both the FE associated with his bets, plus the chance to get his opponents to make big calls with hands they wouldn't have, had they not seen his "insane" bluffs earlier. It's at least as much about luring big calls for him as it is about creating trepidation. Showing a straight-flush draw after his opponents fold to his huge check-raise all-in would not make anyone think he's crazy, or super-aggressive, or anything--again, it is standard.

You obviously can't sum up BOW's play in a post like this one, so my analysis is by no means complete. I'm just saying that your play, while definitely a good one, is apples to BOW's oranges. Also, you slightly glossed over the example, by ignoring the worst-case scenario: the bettor calls with his 2 pair or set, and then one of the callers likes his nut flush draw getting over 2 to 1 with a chance to triple up early in the tournament. In that spot, your equity is under 25%, which still isn't horrible, given the rarity of its occurence.

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Hi cero_z:

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 -- sometimes with a good hand, sometimes with a good draw, sometimes with a mediocre draw, and sometimes with a very weak draw. So 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.

Notice that by playing this way if you catch BOW with one of his strong hands you're probably fifty-fifty in the long run, but if you catch BOW with any of his other hands you'll have from modest to huge equity. So it seems to me that BOW will go broke or there is more to his play than what I understand.

best wishes,
Mason

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Hi Mason,

Part of BOW's gameplan is the same principle upon which Brunson's NL strategy in SS is based. 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. 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. And BOW does not just willy nilly from what I have seen, just overbet or push to smaller pots in relation to stack sizes, but to pots that are relatively large in comparison to his and the opponent's stack sizes in question on that street.

Edit: It should also be noted that BOW's main game is shorthanded NL where there doesn't rate to be as many big hands out against him usually when he is doing his thing and you have to make a big decision with top pair and a weak kicker. When I have seen in on full tables, he plays much tighter.

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Hi Bluff:

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that BOW isn't successful, I'm just trying to understand it a little better.

By the way, it is clear to me that this style will be highly fluctuating. So it might be possible that while BOW was winning his long term results might begin to deteriorate, especially if the regulars do learn to adjust correctly to what he's doing. So does anyone know how BOW has done over the last six months which probably covers most of the time since Gordon actually wrote that section in his Little Green Book?

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Mason, I don't believe those statements are contradictory at all, because his percentage of mediocre hands and bluffs versus good hands, is not going to be perfectly calibrated from a game theoretic point of view. Thus although his good hands are a minority of the ones he holds, he gets better action on them than would other players. Add to that the ones he sucks out on when his draws hit and the ones he steals outright, then he can be way ahead of the game if players play too tight against him and are willing to constantly fold their good but not great hands to his oversize bets.

But you are certainly right about his manner of play being high variance if players do adapt or he gets on a bad run which will be magnified by the way he plays. There have been some threads in the high stakes nl forums in the past months indicating he has suffered a horrendous downswing.

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

[ QUOTE ]

So does anyone know how BOW has done over the last six months which probably covers most of the time since Gordon actually wrote that section in his Little Green Book?


[/ QUOTE ]

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showfl...rt=all&vc=1

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Hi Bluff:

[ QUOTE ]
But you are certainly right about his manner of play being high variance if players do adapt or he gets on a bad run which will be magnified by the way he plays. There have been some threads in the high stakes nl forums in the past months indicating he has suffered a horrendous downswing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I was hinting at this. If it's correct, his method of play may not be so hot.

Now I don't know the answer, but I do have my suspicions which are that part of the reason he did well at first was that some of his opponents adjusted incorrectly to him. However, as time goes on, the adjustments to his strategy will be roughly correct and his flawed strategy, assuming he sticks with it, will cause him to lose everything. But again, I'm just speculating and could have all of this wrong.

Thanks for your interesting comments and analysis.

best wishes,
Mason

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hi Bluff:

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

Based on how much you brag about the growth and size of twoplustwo.com and how much you think cardplayer is inferior, I'm surprised you don't show anywhere near the class that Lee Jones did. I'm surprised that you have such low standards for yourself.

Josh

p.s. I don't think you'd make such a claim without backing it up. I looked for any such evidence, but couldn't find any. My sincerest apologies if I just overlooked it.

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.

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Hi Vulture:

That may be the case but if you're someone who's fairly inexperienced and you take the Gordon analysis of BOW seriously and don't understand that it is dumbed down and you then try to play as Gordon described, it should be expensive. From my point of view, if Gordon couldn't do better than that, he should have left it out of his book.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Mason,

If people try to develop a counterstrategy based on that description of his play, they will be in bad shape. The key here is what you've alluded to elsewhere in this thread - his hand range is not weighted equally across the different types of hands and this weighting is not static. Also, his bluffing frequency is very good and also very dynamic.

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

El D.,
How do you play him, then? What is your strategy? Do you try to avoid pots with him? What do you do when you have solid values and you're stuck in a pot with him?

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hence...
[ QUOTE ]
...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).


[/ QUOTE ]
As he says, if he was the preflop raiser, he bets the flop the majority of the time. Guys get used to it, so, you know, when you raise on the button preflop and someone calls you in the blind and you miss the flop completely and he checks, you maintain your preflop aggression and he either calls or check-raises. See, he knew you'd bet, so, he figures he'll let you bet his hand for him, that's when you shut it down. The game is up. At least, that's how I understood Super System when I began trying to emulate the master. Now, if I have enough outs and that guy check-raises me, then I will push my stack in. I want him to be trying to trap me with AA, KK, or even QQ. Now, had that man reraised me preflop and given me an opportunity to fold, he would have won the preflop raise I made with my 7-8 of spades. So, I lose 3 or 4 BB. However, by smooth-calling and letting me make my hand he loses his stack. That's a pretty good trap if you ask me. I steal so many blinds playing like this, i.e. raising the blinds and they fold that it pays for the pots where someone calls and I have to release the hand after they come after me on the flop, so, it's a virtual freeroll when they call and I hit my hand hard and they pay me off.
However, I know better to argue with you Mason, if I can call you Mason. You are much wiser than I and I suck at math, so, I'm sure if the concept is mathematically flawed you can point that out, or, perhaps you already have. That's just how I understood his philosophy and my results have been good.

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

RB,

Not meaning to be insulting, but you just adjust and play poker.

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

LOL...nice hand, Lee...but in the tournaments I play (anywhere from $100-$500 buy-ins), you would've gotten a call from at least 3 of your opponents! So your fold equity in this spot is really not as good as you think...although, I see no other way to play the hand.

So would you adjust Kill Phil depending on the your opponents skill level?

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Generally speaking, in loose games (and at least 3 players calling an early all-in as you describe qualifies as loose) it pays to hit your draws as cheaply as possible and to overplay your big hands. In such a case, you'd probably be better served to just call the flop and try to hit the straight on the turn and look to get paid off big-time. If I had a set, however, and they play that loose, I'd ship it in on the flop. A set in this spot is about a 67% favorite to win over AA, 45, and Ah 9h, the three callers I presume you had in mind, combined.

In major tournaments with lots of chips, play is rarely anywhere near this loose though, fold equity is higher, and it's more difficult to get big hands paid off if you massively overbet them.

Regards,

Lee

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

I understand that, but what are the adjustments you make? Are you more conservative with the type of hands you play against him? Do you try to play him only when you have position on him? I've seen you play at tables with him, but they were full tables and I don't recall you playing a pot that he was in. Also, I don't railbird nearly as much as others, so, I can't say that I observed enough to figure out any one player's strategy in that game. What do you think of what Gordon says as far as trying to play stronger draws against his potential draws? Those who have had success against him, what did they do differently than other players that have fallen victim to his style?

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

Bear .. I have an idea


How about you take the chair between El D and BOW, and show them how to play some of that 'Take it Doyle' freerollin' poker and in the process display your grasp of the BOW game

Re: Kill Phil in Cash Games
 

1. The Bear is a family man, i.e., he doesn't quite have the bankroll to play that game;
2. The take it Doyle style game that I play is dependent upon opponents being more passive than they are at that level;
3. Much as I would never c-Block El D as he's spitting game to the ladies, I sure as hell would not interfere with him relieving BOW of some cash.
4. Sit between El D and BOW, could there be a worse seat at the table?
5. Why's everybody picking on me? I was just expressing my understanding of Doyle's chapter in Super System. Poker is a game of situations, obviously his style doesn't work in all situations, for example, when the money is not deep. I'm somewhat successful for the limits I play at, I know better than to bite off more than I can chew. If I learned anything from Barry G's book, it's not to go after the best players but to identify the players weaker than yourself and milk them.