Jump to content

Doyle's New Blog


Recommended Posts

BY: DOYLE BRUNSON PUBLISHED: Friday Mar 13, 2009 04:36 PM DOYLISM OF THE DAY: "Some poker players drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle."I'm flattered so many people read my blog. I've had tons of e-mails, phone calls (mostly anonymous), talk on the different forums, etc. There seems to be some confusion so I'll clarify a few things.First, unless I specify it, any comments I make about poker don't include internet poker. So when I said I never saw a poker game that I couldn't beat, I meant 6 or more players sitting down at a table. I don't mean on the internet where players might be talking on the phone or sending IMs. I don't care if you find the top 6 or 7 NLH in the world; I believe I can find a way to win. Also, I don't care if I can beat anyone heads up. Why?….I don't play heads up for a living, only ring games. I've never gone around "bragging" about being the greatest player, only that I've played high-stakes poker longer than anyone.Aggression? Anyone who has read Super System knows I invented that way back in the 70's. These young kids have taken it to a new level. So you have to keep changing your game, just as I had to do after S/S came out. Nowdays, you have to pick your spots to bluff and you try to trap the over aggressive players. Everyone keeps talking about how tight I play on the TV cash games. If you watch these games closely, you'll see a lot of the guys, kids mostly, making plays strictly because they are on TV. Any professional poker player would certainly be wrong to shoot it out with the maniac players.It amazes me. I've won 14 or 15 straight times in the TV cash games. I love them and I love playing against the young "superstars". The main idea of playing is to win, right? Watch Barry G and notice how he plays on these shows. Entirely different than when he plays in a tough cash game. The older players certainly know how to make plays but we won't make a lot because we know how to adapt to any situation.Another thing that pisses me off is when these "know-it-alls" talk about the old time poker players not being any good. I'd like to see any of the "greats" go back and play Johnny Moss, Pat Renfro, Sailor Roberts, James Roy, Doc Ramsey and a host of other guys that made their living playing NLH. Of course that can't happen so we'll never know. I've played against both worlds and I think the old guys would chew up these young guns.I'm getting old, there is nothing I can do about that, but I'm still willing to play anybody "Doyle Sez", where I can name the game and change to another game when I want to. If any of the internet stars, that don't play live, want to play, I'll give them half their money back if they lose if they play 8 hours a day for a week.Everyone also asks about the match between Patrik Antonius and myself and what happened. First, I want to say I'm not interested in playing Patrik because he is a weak player. On the contrary, I think he is a great player and I make him and Daniel Negreanu the favorites over anyone to still be playing 30 years from now. Patrik wants a list of the games, which I'll provide him.I just feel I can find a game against anyone that I can beat them at. I know this means I'll have to play heads up, which I hate, but I can't back down now. -DB

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I like how Doyle hates internet poker, but he has his own online poker room lol.
but his passion is in the live game which I can understand that. looking back at some of the old coverage it would of been very interesting if Stu Unger was still alive to see him play against someone like Durr. I would pick Stu to win. Sure the game changed it's become more aggressive and betting has move between preflop-post flop but you still can't out fox someone who played the game for 30-40 yrs and not think that they might not of seen that move before. Thinking back when I learned poker 35 years ago I recall some plays that involved moves we see today that we are saying it is relatively new such as 3Cbetting etc. that I have seem done 35 yrs ago. So I wouldn't say that the older generation is at a loss with the new generation in aggressive type plays but, maybe math wise with pot odds and implied odds then there may be a slight advantage to only a small few. it makes it interesting that's for sure. I perfer Live vs internet any day
Link to post
Share on other sites
First, unless I specify it, any comments I make about poker don't include internet poker. So when I said I never saw a poker game that I couldn't beat, I meant 6 or more players sitting down at a table. I don't mean on the internet where players might be talking on the phone or sending IMs.
LOLironyaments.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Doyle certainly has pride and ego and you'll see a rant like this every once in awhile. Its a competely different animal now with the hyper-aggressive play, being staked by online poker sites, the influx of good players with all the training sites, books, etc. When Doyle used to play cash games, each one meant something. Now, online tournament players multi-table and losing 20 a day isn't concerning to them as they look to cash in just a few. Same with cash games online. I'd like to see how hyper-aggressive younger players would be if they had to play live every time....pay their own travel expenses....no signings with online poker sites to cover all entry fees and expenses....its just completely different with online play. Without it, I sincerely doubt it would be as aggressive as it is now. That developed because of the ease and anonymity of being online.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm getting old, there is nothing I can do about that, but I'm still willing to play anybody "Doyle Sez", where I can name the game and change to another game when I want to. If any of the internet stars, that don't play live, want to play, I'll give them half their money back if they lose if they play 8 hours a day for a week.
I could beat anybody too if I got to set all the rules and change them whenever I wanted. History's great because everyone takes on mythical status and they don't actually have to keep proving themselves. Stu Ungar never has to encounter (aka get eaten up by) an entire table of people playing as aggressive or more aggressive than he, all of whom have a greater mathematical understanding of every decision and every stage of a tournament. I appreciate that Doyle continues to put his game out there to be measured against others, but I find it laughable that Doyle can't figure out that the depth of talent in the current game is something to be embraced rather than threatened by.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody know what's on his game list for 'Doyle Sez'. I get the spirit of it, he's not someone the game has passed by, dude's still very good. He just doesn't play online as well which I could understand. He's played live for years, is used to all the extra information you get live, and the pace of that game. Switching to online which is faster and with less information takes away tools he's perfected. Why would he do that to himself if he didn't need to? But yeah, if you're gonna brag, brag hard, not 'I could beat you if we play my games and change when we want to.'Oh man, thread idea!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
I could beat anybody too if I got to set all the rules and change them whenever I wanted. History's great because everyone takes on mythical status and they don't actually have to keep proving themselves. Stu Ungar never has to encounter (aka get eaten up by) an entire table of people playing as aggressive or more aggressive than he, all of whom have a greater mathematical understanding of every decision and every stage of a tournament. I appreciate that Doyle continues to put his game out there to be measured against others, but I find it laughable that Doyle can't figure out that the depth of talent in the current game is something to be embraced rather than threatened by.
i couldnt disagree more
Link to post
Share on other sites

Doyle is the man. I think he can hang with anyone in NLH and probably most other games with the exceptions he states like PLO. If what he says is true he has proven it on the HSP episodes that he has played on and been a winner. I hope he is around for years to come.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Too funny.......As BG once said: Kids who never made a mortgage payment telling me about bankroll management. Or something like that.Doyle has been around longer than any of us have been alive. And he's made his living playing poker.Let's see how history judges all of you young pups.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it would be hilarious if a HSNL cash game player today played johnny moss or whoever the fk.i wonder if 4bet bluff was even in the rhelm of poker lingo (let alone concept) back then.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And could they beat doyle if they were playing :insert their name here:: sayz?? most likely yes...so pretty much what doyle says proves nothing...was/is he a great player?? undoubtedly yes... but winning doyle sayz only prooves that he is the best at...doyle sayz...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doyle is a legend of the game but his age is really showing in his blog. His attitude (and NUMEROUS other live "TV" pros) towards internet poker and internet players in general is that of subtle jealously and misunderstanding. The internet has produced some of the best POKER players in the world and they are all playing at a level that is higher than anything Doyle has ever known. Players like Tom Dwan, Phil Galfond, Issac Baron, Patrik Antonius, Phil Ivey, JC Tran, etc are better poker players in tournaments and cash games than any of the top players years ago. I'm sorry but Doyle simply doesn't completely comprehend the way that poker has evolved, and will continue evolving, and he probably never will.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm sorry but Doyle simply doesn't completely comprehend the way that poker has evolved, and will continue evolving, and he probably never will.
Yet YOU feel qualified enough to talk about the evolution of poker more than Doyle? Jesus fcking christ. In the "old pro" defence, a lot of the modern generation do seem to feel like they invented the game. The fact that Doyle has played and been beating all games for so many years and that all great players talk about how good he is kind of disagrees with your statement. Is he still as high on the NLH scale as he was? No, but he'd no doubt be a favourite in any mix game against almost anyone.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the new generation are great players for sure, and some are going to prove to be a flash in the pan, but when any of them play Dolly heads up, he's going to have that straight flush after the last draw and they're going to pay him off with the Aces Full.

Link to post
Share on other sites
it would be hilarious if a HSNL cash game player today played johnny moss or whoever the fk.i wonder if 4bet bluff was even in the rhelm of poker lingo (let alone concept) back then.
i remember reading/hearing a story from doyle where he was playing a hand with a guy,and he was on a straight draw with something like a q10 and, he was putting his opponent on a lower straight draw.they get to the river and doyle had missed his straight,and if his read was right so did the other guy. yet he shoots out a monster bet of 40k and were talking 30 40 years ago (thats alota money)in the end,the story went he couldnt put this guy on anything other then that straightdraw and called with q10,and buddy tabled j10 (or the exact hand doyle had him on type thing)fuk i really wish i could link u guys to where i heard thisso i think if the man who CREATED lag poker could do that 30 40 years ago,i think he could adjust to a few of todays best online players mixed into the regular high stakes game he might be playing at that time (EDIT: and play them profitably after some studying)do u honestly beleive the bolded to be true jordan? u think the new age phenoms would slaughter those guys doyle mentioned as tough for the time in a ring game for similar winrates that they enjoy at the nosebleeds?jus very curious at ur honest thoughts on what i outlined,cuz "hilarious" makes it hard to read what u really think
Link to post
Share on other sites
I could beat anybody too if I got to set all the rules and change them whenever I wanted.
How is what doyle set up any different than what durrr did? They both think they have a edge setting these games up the way they did. If you have a prob with what doyle said then you have a prob with durrs guidlines also correct?
Link to post
Share on other sites
it would be hilarious if a HSNL cash game player today played johnny moss or whoever the fk.i wonder if 4bet bluff was even in the rhelm of poker lingo (let alone concept) back then.
You realy want to know the answer. yes it was a concept back then, it was just call somthing else. Some concept have been discovered and that had been great but just becouse you have new lingo mean you thing you have invented it. You are just being close-minded.
Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, no im not being close minded.i was just thinking outloud in wondering if it was something that was just done.knowing how nitty and lol live cash games are even today, i would be surprised if 4bet bluffing and 3betting was even utilized like it is now...pre and post flop.the reason i think it would be "hilarious" is cause i think both people would be thinking in different eras of poker and it would be funny, literally, to see wtf happened.anyone that has played poker has bluffed, whether it be 3betting or 4betting or bluff/raising a river...but the fact that it's so WIDELY known now (all the different angles, plays, etc etc etc), makes the games infinately tougher.i think doyle, like younger kids, that talk shit are both outta line to an extent. i remember playing back in LA with some old guy and we got to talking at the table. he been playing poker for a living since the 70s and was actually a pretty cool guy. i was suprised at his play, cause i could tell it was somewhat different from most older gentlemen that i had played with before and/or their rep. it was interesting to pick his brain about the games back then and how it is now. needless to say, it is a completely different playing field and the internet has changed everything. the playing field is much more leveled now, and if you put your time and 'studies' in, like many succesful MSNL and HSNL pros do, i dont see how doyle can just be like, "yea, an old pro like johnny moss would beat these online kids".anywaysssssssssssssssssss my mind is soooo open

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not just old school and internet players, the worse thing that happened to live poker was limit holdem and rocks. Made it a bore and almost killed the game. Blame it on the casinos who wanted to up the rake. Before that there were only NL and PL games limit was for stud, and HL games. Those big bet games survived in the clubs long enough for me to play in them back in the 80s some of those players were light years ahead of a good limit player of the time when NL took off again, but that gap has long since closed :club: Mixed games still might give an oldtimer the edge but that too is going away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i think internet poker killed the old guard, since no one wants to play live anymore so a lot of internet kids dont think doyle or whoever is as goo of a player that they actually are

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit off topic...When I was at the Bellagio earlier this week, Doyle hit somebody with his scooter. Without missing a beat, the dealer says "When he's not running people over at the poker table, he's running them over with that scooter"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...