You had to make me watch? This time, Doyle bet out, Berland raised him all-in and, of course, Doyle called. Doyle Brunson, being the professional, was sure he had an edge over his opponent and was looking to exploit this edge ruthlessly. The site originated as Pacific Poker, and has been around for a very long time. Doyle's OMG reaction after being told he got trip 6s to fold?
What do you think?
I start on poker watching him plays.. August 30th, , 2: This raise represents the top of the range KK JJ hahaha. August 30th, , 8: I never said to stop watching them, they make for some of the most spectacular games.
Heck, most of us wouldn't have been playing poker hadn't it for the shows or the pros. But that said, don't try to analyze a professional player. They're thinking in absolute terms Either the opponent has a 6 or he doesn't; Doyle made two pair with KJ and looking to get paid from worse K.
Back in the day that might have been the case, but today with all the knowledge and tools available, its what some might consider primitive. Hey, don't stop watching them. And we all need some entertainment in life, don't we? What in the latest line of thought is 3b an EP limp with 65o recommended? Doyle couldn't peg him on 65o. Who would and why? Doyle assumed he had a K from an EP raise and subsequent double barrelling. He clearly had him dominated with a higher 2 pair.
Sure everyone can speculate Doyle on KJ after the fact. Not necessarily while the hand is in play. Pros play weird esp. If you really want to follow some pros, follow someone like Phil Galfond, he has a better understanding of the game of modern poker.
Heck follow the many great streamers, they've a better understanding. The only reason, I can think of, why people like Tom Dwan, or Viktor Bloom were that successful back in the day, was this native thinking that we could easily put an opponent into a particular hand, and that's where the veterans got it wrong.
See how they've exploited that exact tendencies, of putting the opponent into a particular hand. And how highly successful, they were, in doing that. Along with having some pair of steel balls. That makes it two reasons, I guess. So again, don't try to analyze televised pros when I'm talking of televised, I'm talking of shows, not streams. They make for good TV, but not great for learning. But that's about it. All I understand from your posts is a lot of generalising about TV poker. But nothing specific to the hand.
First you say Doyle's line of thought is primitive. Then when questioned about it you pivot away from it. Let me ask you properly: Doyle is an old school dry balls, he probably thought he had the best hand against a young internet wizard, and Doyle's tight dry old guy image, forced the kid to give it up.
Originally Posted by okeedokalee. You mean, you didn't even watch the video before posting? Let me ask you this, why do you think Doyle raised the river?
It's the same fallacy, either I'm beat or am ahead Primitive. What hand do you think he put Benefield on? Not even AA or any 6 or 88 or KK. But the question Doyle should have asked himself is why is he betting the turn? What hand bets the turn? Benefield played it bad at the end, by folding, because with such a monster, you have to pay it off, getting 3: About learning from this hand, or hands like this, what exactly did you learn?
August 31st, , 5: YWhat's the non primitive way to think? Ever consider that all those years of experience playing live winning poker might have reinforced traits and nuances that are backed by the more mathematical thought processes we now rely on? If you were in Doyle's chair why would you assume your opponent would have a 6x hand given the action that preceded?
Here's a breakdown of the hands that beat Doyle's on the turn Pocket 6s definitely. Why wouldn't a re-raise be warranted here? I learnt that I can use my tight table image and well time aggression to force looser players off winning yet speculative hands.
Since I'm an MTT player I find this to be a very valuable lesson in the middle stages in a tourney in a table where I've got a well established table image. August 31st, , 3: Thanks for your detailed explanation.
You shouldn't play to outplay the opponent, yes that's what ultimately end up happening, but your goal in poker should be to maximize your EV. Now I would like to ask you this, what range do you think does that? Do you think a mediocre pair like TT or 99 or JJ, bets twice?
Or does he realize his equity by pot controlling? That too against a NIT? I'll leave that analysis to you and for you to figure out, how the range drastically changes with a turn bet on such a board.
That said, let's talk a bit about the river re-raise shove , what does that accomplice? It's a very interesting read, but there are literally dozens of books more relevant if you're a low-stakes online player. September 14th, , 7: As your experience as a poker player grows, you should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff, regardless of the format book, youtube, etc.
In obtaining my university degree, I have read several hundred books and manuscripts up to years old. To suggest that there isn't value in reading 'old' books or books by 'old' authors, should be handled with skepticism I'm looking at you Doug Polk. While some of the information will be dated, that doesn't mean there isn't value. There is, but understanding what the important 'stuff' is, how to interpret that information in today's game, these are the nuggets that elevate your game.
Clearly I advocate reading. While it has been several years since I read the original Super System, there is lots of great stuff to be had in there. I can only make the assumption that Doyle's new book will also offer some great stuff! My thoughts, I look forward to hearing yours. September 20th, , 7: DonksRUS I couldn't agree with you more.
Im actually on my way to pick up the book now. Thanks for the response. GL out there guys Hopefully we come across each other on the tables. September 20th, , 8: Bronsons book ose probably onle one I liked of pokerbooks. September 20th, , 9: I havent read it but my friend has, it's a very affective book. My friends poker has got alot better since reading it. September 20th, , I have not read it but i want to some day,.
September 21st, , 2: Originally Posted by DonksRUs. September 21st, , 5: It would be nice for Doyle to write an autobiography. Probably a lot to be learned from his longevity as a successful player - maybe more than tips for any single variation of the game. September 21st, , September 21st, , 1: I would assume Doyle's book would be both credible and informative. Put it this way, he is not doing it for the money. Todays game is very similar to the way it's always been played with the exception of the fearless players with a go for broke attitude.
Just my opinion of course. September 22nd, , 1: Originally Posted by bigjay August 19th, , I'm also looking for this book. Please tell me how to read this book. August 19th, , 1: August 19th, , 5: This is a very old book. Many things Doyle tries to teach in this book are not used in modern poker. If you're really trying to learn you should look into some of the newer online coaching that way you gain an edge that applies to today's game. August 20th, , From old trends and patterns that have been created profitable strategies.
I believe that all knowledge becomes valid when one learns to put into practice. August 20th, , 4: Super System's was the 1st poker book I read, good book - good read. August 23rd, , 5: