In Super System, Doyle says...

[giant panda]

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Is there any validity to this advice, or is it out of date and stupid?

[tribet]

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

[NotFadeAway]

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

[AaronBrown]

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.

[tribet]

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

[Flip-Flop]

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.

[pzhon]

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.

[XxGeneralxX]

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

I believe in rushes

[PantsOnFire]

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.