In Super System, Doyle says...

[TexRef]

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.

[XxGeneralxX]

[ 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

[ApeAttack]

[ 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.

[Mason Malmuth]

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

[binions]

[ 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.

[Dazz3]

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.

[R Gibert]

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.

[Albert Moulton]

[ 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.

[DrOfDonkology]

[ 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.

[SplawnDarts]

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?