In Super System, Doyle says...
 

that if you win a hand, you should definitely play the next hand too.

Is there any validity to this advice, or is it out of date and stupid?

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

What page does he say that on and is it in 1 or 2?

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

In SS1 he says that if he wins a big pot he'll play the next one because "rushes happen" or something like that.

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

I'm not sure of the context, but it's true that if you win a big pot you're more likely to get called on the next one. Whether that makes you want to play it or not depends on your hand, and also on the table situation. It's not a time to slowplay or bluff, but you can bet your good hands strongly, expecting calls. You can play almost any hand if you can see the flop cheaply, because if you hit you're more likely to get paid off.

If people are playing too loose, you are inclined to play your next hand, because it will loosen things up further. In the extreme, you'll put people on tilt (I don't believe "rushes" happen in the sense of runs of good luck, but they certainly happen in the sense of runs of poor play by others).

If people are playing too tight, you'd prefer not to play your next hand, you want to push them tighter. They won't go on tilt being tight, but you can get people so tight that their chance of winning is near zero. You won't get as rich as if people tilt, but you'll have a lot less volatility. In poker it's wise to take what the table gives you rather than trying to force your luck.

Another point is that people tend to play fewer hands when they're up, but to fold less often once they begin. It's not a bad idea to do the opposite of most people's inclinations, both to confound other players who expect you to be typical and also because instincts are generally wrong. So it's not a bad idea to play more hands after winning a big pot, but to let them go at the first sign of trouble.

None of these are reasons to play every hand automatically, of course, just reasons you might want to play a few more or less than you would otherwise.

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

So hes gonna play 72o from under the gun because rushes happen? Great Idea

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

If you don`t understand what Doyle tries to say there is better to skip that part and avoid doing things like that because in theory.. it does sound like a silly advice.

I understand what he is saying there but I`m afraid that if I try to explain it my bad English will get in a way and my post will probably sound like some voodoo crap.
So I`ll skip THAT part.

My advice still stands though...ignore that part of the book...for now.

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

The NLHE part of Super System assumes that the stacks are deep. That's very different from the typical modern games, e.g., online games with a 100 BB maximum buy-in.

If you just won 5 hands in a row, say without going to showdown, would your opponents play well, or badly in the next hand? Observant opponents may be tilting. It's more likely than normal that someone will call you down in a big pot with one pair, so big hands will get paid off much more than normal. This may be a profitable situation, and it may be worth investing a little to get there. However, if everyone is playing with a 100 BB stack, getting people to stack off with a weak hand is not worth nearly as much as if everyone has over 1000 BB. So, in modern games, the investment is probably not worth it with a trash hand, although you might try playing a hand that is marginally unprofitable. It is more plausible that this tactic was worth it in the games Brunson discusses.

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

that concept is just simply outdated and bad advice. Doyle talks about playing the next hand after you win one because you might be on what he calls a "rush". This may have worked in the 70's because people just sucked balls at the game. NLH has evolved so much since then that doing this would be a monster leak. maybe he was leveling

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

I believe in rushes

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

I have opinions on this but no idea how accurate they are.

This might be good for a TAG or perceived TAG. After you win a big pot, it is obviously fresh in people's minds. I think this might increase your implied odds and conversely, your fold equity as well against the right opponents. This would depend on the table makeup, how you won the pot (showdown would be very different from a large bet to earn a pot with no show) and your feel for the table dynamics.

Here are three things that I think can happen after a big:

1. There is no change in the table or your image. So it would probably be -EV to play -EV hands.

2. There may be some who will tilt even slightly or loosen a little as far as looking you up. This would be especially true if you won the last pot with a big all-in that wasn't called. So if you played a trash hand that hit, your implied odds could be huge.

3. People may tighten up against you. This would be especially true if you won a big pot, playing deceptively and crushing top pair with the nuts. In this case, you might just win a pot with any two cards in any position.

So I think if you are a good enough player, like Brunson, you can get into the next pot and recognize which of the above situations might apply and to which particular opponents. You have to probably be an expert player reader and have a very tough image.

This sounds like very advanced holdem. I know I couldn't do it and even if I could, it probably wouldn't work well against less than average players because they are too unpredictable.

I don't necessarily believe in the concept of a "rush", but in my experience in MTT play, I have won a big pot, especially by a crushing margin and then had the run of the table for several hands afterwards. Sometimes I will run until I get resistance and then revert to normal. Sometimes I will steal a couple of hands and then sit back for a while and steal a few more later. I will usually have better cards to back me up for the second method.

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

I think that what he is saying is that if he has won a hand, or a few hands in a row, he is going to keep putting the pressure on and come on in the next hand. There is some validity to this, I think... Sometimes when you are winning several hands in a row players do not want to play with you because you are taking down pot after pot and they do not want to be the next victim.

On the flip side, there are going to be some players that play back at you because you have won several in a row... It's up to you to identify this and back off when it happens.

Not sure if it's a rush or what, but sometimes things do just seem to fall your way... When you bluff everyone folds, when they call you have a monster, etc.

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe in rushes

[/ QUOTE ]

i believe in short term positive variance but that doesn't justify playing a trash hand just because I won the previous pot

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think that what he is saying is that if he has won a hand, or a few hands in a row, he is going to keep putting the pressure on and come on in the next hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure he was talking about playing the next hand because you want to develop/play a rush.

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

Hi Panda:

I think the way to explain this is to sort of view Brunson as a link from old ideas to more modern ones. Back in the old days, and there were still many people who thought like this when I began to play alot around 1980, very few people had a statistical approach to playing poker. Thus they weren't able to handle ideas like statistical fluctuations and their severity very well.

Foe example, it wasn't uncommon to see good players constantly asking for deck changes in an effort to change their luck, and statements like, "You can't measure luck" which I used in my Gambling Theory and Other Topics were common place.

So this brings us to Doyle Brunson of over 30 years ago. Even though he obviously knew how to play well, he wasn't versed in probability theory, and so stuff like this crept into even his thinking.

So is it a silly statement? The answer is yes and I'm sure if Doyle was to reproduce that book today the statement about always playing the next hand after you win one would be removed.

By the way, and this will come as a big surprise to many of you, but it's my understanding that Doyle was known as a very tight player in the old time no-limit games and he would probably be the last one to automatically play a hand.

Best wishes,
Mason

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure of the context, but it's true that if you win a big pot you're more likely to get called on the next one.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find the opposite to be true in tournaments. If I win a big pot, often the easiest blind steal I have is the next hand.

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

I would say in general its bad to play a hand just becaus you won the hand before but if you are playing LAG it might be good to try and get a "rush" just to tild you oponents and that way earn more money.

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

Player psychology is such that, a players decisions in a hand are affected by the outcomes of previous hands. It is smart to take this into account.

If your opponent believes you are--more--likely to win the current hand, because you won the last hand, then you should take advantage of the fact that your opponent appears to believe in rushes. When you do so, it may appear that you believe in rushes too, but that is just a coincidence (hopefully).

If your opponent believes you are--less--likely to win the current hand, because you won the last hand, then you should take advantage of the fact that your opponent appears to believe in "the law of averages." Again, when you do so, it may appear that you believe in "the law of averages" too, but that is just another coincidence (hopefully).

Of course, the tough trick is telling the difference between appearances and reality. This is poker.

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

[ QUOTE ]
that if you win a hand, you should definitely play the next hand too.

Is there any validity to this advice, or is it out of date and stupid?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my edition of SSI, p. 451, "Rushes," he says ...

[ QUOTE ]
After I've won a pot in No-Limit...I'm in the next pot -- regardless of what two cards I pick up. And if I win that one ... I'm always in the next one. I keep playing every pot until I lose one. And, in all those pots, I gamble more than I normally would.

If you don't play that way ... you'll never have much of a rush. I know that scientists don't believe in rushes... but they make about fifteen hundred a month. I've ;played Poker for almost 25 years now... and I've made millions at it. A big part of my winnings came from playing my rushes.

There's only one world-class Poker player that I know of who doesn't believe in rushes. Well, he's wrong... and so are the "scientists". Besides, how many of them can play Poker anyway?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he believed it when he wrote it. It wouldn't surprise me if he believes it still.

Of course, it is possible that other people in a hand behave differently when they perceive someone is on a "hot streak." Perhaps they fold more. Or perhaps they call lighter. But, as far as "rushes" of hot cards, that is just statistical variance on the up side and I don't think it's theoretically sound to adjust bet sizes larger than what would ordinarily be +EV play just because your on a rush and expect the hit your 4-outer on the river despite getting only 2:1 on your money for all your chips.

FWIW, Doyle Brunson in SSI also says that he believes some good Poker players have a certain amount of ESP. He acknowledges that it's unprovable and goes on to say, "I like to think of ESP as a Jellyroll anyway." Although he doesn't say the same about rushes, I think his description of "Rushes" is something of Jellyroll too. But, then again, I haven't made millions playing poker, either.

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

[ QUOTE ]
but it's my understanding that Doyle was known as a very tight player in the old time no-limit games and he would probably be the last one to automatically play a hand.


[/ QUOTE ]

I wasnt around back then, but all that Doyle talked about in the NLHE section of SS1 was how he steamrolled over his opponents and constantly made them make decisions for all of their chips. My first impression after reading the section on rushes was that this was merely another technique to get them to surrender to him because seeing him have one big hand magnified the possibility that he could have one at any point and this would be scary to them for at least the near future because of his tendency to force them to commit all of their money.

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

Playing rushes is very correct in deepstack NL, and it is not about variance or the likelihood that the next deal will give you good cards. It has to do with your opponents.

In deepstack NL, the vast majority of pots don't go to showdown. Who wins the majority of those pots has nothing to do with cards and everything to do with

a) who's more aggressive
b) who's willing to call down

Now, winning a big pot at showdown reduces the likelihood that your opponents will call down or play back at you. If you simultaneously ratchet up the aggression like Doyle suggests, you're almost sure to claim the vast majority of pots without a contest. Under those circumstances, any two will do. As long as this situation persists (ie. you keep winning) why wouldn't you keep playing?

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

I once applied this concept and won 5 hands in a row with rubbish, I'm not entirekly convinced of its merit, but I do believe it may be a nice idea in deep games..

JT

Re: In Super System, Doyle says...
 

[ QUOTE ]
that if you win a hand, you should definitely play the next hand too.

Is there any validity to this advice, or is it out of date and stupid?

[/ QUOTE ]


The same statement is in SS2, but it's been updated.



P. 562

"It used to be that after I had won a pot in no-limit I would be in the next pot, regardless of what two cards I picked up. And if I won, I'd always be in the next one. I'd keep playing every pot until I lost one. And in all those pots, I'd gamble more than I normally would. Nowadays, I still try to observe this, but I've modified it because players are so much more agressive."