super/system flawed for uNL

[Sean Fraley]

[ QUOTE ]
"Playing MillerBots running GSiHE-1.0 is not much fun!"

Can you explain this in a little more detail? I mean as far as what you know about the bots and how many you estimate to be around.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a reference to Ed Miller's "Getting Started in Hold 'Em" and the beginning players who have read it, not a reference to an actual software pokerbot. While I've only glanced at the book it sticks in my head that at some point it suggests that new players buy in short-stacked and play a strategy that emphasizes playing premium hands preflop and making your decisions on the flop very basic, almost push-fold. I could also have it confused with one of the others I flipped through at Border's while buying other books.

[TheDespot]

Don't play the way Super/System advocates in uNL. The ideal way to play in these games is tight-aggressive and I think that's fairly obvious to anyone who plays them regularly. Now this does not mean you cannot bluff, but you should NOT bet 95% or so of flops like it says in Super/System after you raise pre-flop, for example. You should NOT push draws without proper odds, etc.

[mvdgaag]

[ QUOTE ]
"Playing MillerBots running GSiHE-1.0 is not much fun!"

Can you explain this in a little more detail? I mean as far as what you know about the bots and how many you estimate to be around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone that's playing and using miller's strategy hardly has to think himself and therefore might very well be a bot. It doesn't matter if this is truely a bot or not, all that matters is that it's a simple but effective strategy that is either followed by some pc runned bot or a person. It is very hard to exploit such a strategy with other deep stacked players that might be (or are) in the same hand. Therefore it's just no good game against the strategy (which is a compliment for the effectiveness of the strategy?!). I think deep stacked poker is just more about the game. Shortstack poker is more about who has the best preflop hand, far less strategic options and skill involved. And very annoying for players that are willing to play deep stack strategies against eachother.

[JCCARL]

[ QUOTE ]
For the readers that read super/systems NL holdem advice... It just doesn't work very well for me at uNL. This is because the players do not seem to notice your agression and fail to get into the folding habit. Since the system depends so much on folding equity you are just spewing chips against all these calling stations.
Also because many people buy in very short all the small suited connectors and small pairs are hardly worth playing against any opponent.

What do you guys think?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not every book you read is appropriate for all games at all levels. As you learn more about the stakes you play, you can apply what you have read from various sources to help your game.

Regards,
Carl

[RobNottsUk]

Thank you Sean and mvdgaag. Yes, I was being 'naughty' but begginners with 20bb in stack, squirelling (or ratholing on wins), and playing push/fold poker relying on S-C charts, according to "Get Started in Hold'Em" are lets face it, effectively 'bots'.

Guys, deep stack 100+bb tables are the future!

[antisocialgrace]

I think it's probably far fetched to suggest Doyle wrote a book to over-populate the bottom of the food chain (TJ Cloutier did and I wonder at times about Harrington as well).

That said the style he advocates for NLHE is not one suited to intermediate players with modest or even healthy bankrolls. From what I've been able to gather the swings are humongous and the reads you need to be able to make are way beyond the capacity of all but the top players. Besides that as already pointed out, the players at all but the highest stakes are too unsophisticated for a lot of these plays to work.

Not saying super aggressive doesn't work, just saying Doyle wasn't honest about how difficult it is to play or the selective circumstances that are ideal for it.

I often sense manipulation by some of these player/authors when they write or advocate in such a way that their readers probably feel cowardly or stupid if they don't emulate play they're unable to fully appreciate or utilize to their advantage.. because of inexperience among other things.

But then that could just be me, I have trust issues with humanity in general.

[Albert Moulton]

Super System has some lines in there to the effect of, "You can't put a bad player on a hand," "You can't bluff a bad player," and "When you're playing bad players, you have to show down the best hand."

But this is good. It just means you have to show down good hands, bet a lot when you are good or getting the right odds or implied odds to be good, and avoid FPS (fancy play syndrome).

Also, if the uNL game was .01/.02 blinds with $20 max buy-in, then it is actually a very deep game (1000 x bb stacks). In this game, implied odds and position are probably more important than starting hand requirements despite the fact that it is uNL. You should probably raise and reraise with a wide variety of hands to build pots, isolate, buy the button, etc. You just need to remember that no one is playing with scared money, many of the players are calling stations, and when the pot gets big, you will always need to show down the best hand since you won't have much fold equity.

I think that part of the benefit of a super aggressive style at deep, high-limit games is that some of the players probably aren't bankrolled properly to play at that level, and they are therefore playing a little too weak-tight to defend against a super aggressive opponent. At uNL, even deep stacked, this just isn't the case. No one is playing with scared money.

Now, if people buy-in short, then you have to see what they're playing with. If they are playing a solid, short-stack strategy and going all-in with AK/AQ/77+ and folding everything else, it will be hard to do much against them besides picking up a big hand when they go all in. However, a lot of short stack newbies are much too loose preflop. They will raise in EP with stuff like QJ or KQ without going all in. Vs these guys, you can let them raise in EP, get a couple of callers, then you can reraise or push (depending on how deep you and the other players are) with TT-AA/AK/AQ to isolate and get heads up vs the pot-committed short stack with all the dead money from the callers as overlay.

Essentially, you just have to play poker. That means changing gears to exploit the mistakes of your opponents. If your opponents check and call too much, then take free cards more often instead of semi-bluff, and value bet your good hands more aggressively when you hit.

[sayuncle]

sort of off topic: but on High Stakes Poker, Brunson plays nothing like his book says. I guess since they all read his book, he has to do something different. But he does say to adjust to your players.

[mvdgaag]

Thanks all, for the reactions. I might post a bigger reply later, when I have the time.

sayuncle: In SS2 Doyle writes that he kept a lot the same as SS1, because it is still very good advice, but he can't play that way, because the other players would know and he had to adapt. How dumb does he think our opponents are when they see us play his super system style?! Don't we have to adapt as well? Anyways, I still think the advice in the book is great, but you'll need opponents that understand the game and therefore it's flawed at uNL.

[RobNottsUk]

Of course.

Some of SS NL strategy is tailored to exploit weak-tight players, probably under-bankrolled who want to do battle with a really good hand. Other parts, like play of big pairs, is avoiding overplaying and catching bluffs etc. Again it assumes 'Folders'.

Everyone on every forum, complains about ridiculous folds, don't they?