playing like doyle?

[nachunja 0]

i went to the nearby libary and picked up supersystem2 i was reading the part about no limit by Doyle himself.the style of writing was so arrogant anyways i respect him for his success and i decided to test his style so im playing in the 20 buy in tournament, wit 10 ppl. i raise with good cards and i raise with mediocre cardsi raise with suited connectors and i raise with pocketssoon after i lost half of my stackso its either i dont think i understand what aggression issomeone help me out and is being aggressive the way to go

[alf13 0]

i went to the nearby libary and picked up supersystem2 i was reading the part about no limit by Doyle himself.the style of writing was so arrogant anyways i respect him for his success and i decided to test his style so im playing in the 20 buy in tournament, wit 10 ppl. i raise with good cards and i raise with mediocre cardsi raise with suited connectors and i raise with pocketssoon after i lost half of my stackso its either i dont think i understand what aggression issomeone help me out and is being aggressive the way to go

AH....I think you need to learn how to play first.

[93transam 0]

basically what alf said..most of doyle's philosophy provides that you have experience with a loooot of hands, that way you know what to do after the flop..simply being aggressive isnt enough.

[Teph 0]

i went to the nearby libary and picked up supersystem2 i was reading the part about no limit by Doyle himself.the style of writing was so arrogant anyways i respect him for his success and i decided to test his style so im playing in the 20 buy in tournament, wit 10 ppl. i raise with good cards and i raise with mediocre cardsi raise with suited connectors and i raise with pocketssoon after i lost half of my stackso its either i dont think i understand what aggression issomeone help me out and is being aggressive the way to go

AH....I think you need to learn how to play first.

I second that. If you are basing ALL of your statistics off of ONE $20 SnG, you should probably just go back to McDonalds and make a living.

[Sushiman 0]

His NL style is written for high, high stakes poker, and that is about the only place his style will be effective. It is also devoted to cash games only(at least the first Super System was) and to use it in tournament is pretty foolish. Nobody is going to be scared of aggression in a $20 game, especially if you are showing down less than impressive hands. His style is also based on situational reads of what the opponent has and what the opponnent would be scared to draw to if you make the pot big. Frankly at these low limits, there are no players good enough to fold a mediocore hand or a bad draw against you, so playing this way is pointless.

[Socrates 0]

i went to the nearby libary and picked up supersystem2 i was reading the part about no limit by Doyle himself.the style of writing was so arrogant anyways i respect him for his success and i decided to test his style so im playing in the 20 buy in tournament, wit 10 ppl. i raise with good cards and i raise with mediocre cardsi raise with suited connectors and i raise with pocketssoon after i lost half of my stackso its either i dont think i understand what aggression issomeone help me out and is being aggressive the way to go

First off, SS2 is for cash games, high stakes cash games. Trying to emulate an aggressive cash game style into a NL tournament is just stupid. Learn the games before you try and criticize or even use any of the tactics explained by pros.

[Sushiman 0]

and is being aggressive the way to go

And btw, it is most certainly not the way to go early in an SNG.

[devilsslide 0]

if you're looking for a good book on NL tourney's, get Harrington on Hold'em-- nothing but great reviews.

[case ace 0]

if you're looking for a good book on NL tourney's, get Harrington on Hold'em-- nothing but great reviews.

shhhkeep this one too yourself.and yeah, ss is cash games, if you can't realize that, play more cards before you read more. You need to be able to be a critical reader and decide if what the writer says fits YOUR game, so you need a style and more exp 1st. IMO that is

[bhughes77 0]

Doyle added a NL TOURNEY CHAPTER.... In he explains that early in a tournament he gets bored by having to play so TIGHT, later in tournies when the blinds are worth more he reverts back to his cash game aggressivness.

[case ace 0]

Doyle added a NL TOURNEY CHAPTER.... In he explains that early in a tournament he gets bored by having to play so TIGHT, later in tournies when the blinds are worth more he reverts back to his cash game aggressivness.

yeah, his chapter is REALLY lacking. compared to harrington, its a 3rd grade understanding of mtts

[bhughes77 0]

I didnt say the chapter was goood, lol. How ever it does let the OP know that even doyle plays tight at the beginning of a tourney.I realize there are far better sources out there to learn tournament strategy.

[reedmcneal 0]

I would say to read Sklansky, but somehow I think that may be over your head.

[HurricaneKyle 0]

I also had trouble the first time after reading SS. However, there was one thing I realized, I can't play like Doyle Brunson. Every individual has their own strengths. If playing like a maniac works well for you, then do it because you won't be comfortable being patient. If you can wait for big hands but can't handle the pressure of playing lots hands, then do it. I reread the book, and incorporated some new ideas into my game, and my results have been good.

[Loismustdie 0]

i went to the nearby libary and picked up supersystem2 i was reading the part about no limit by Doyle himself.the style of writing was so arrogant anyways i respect him for his success and i decided to test his style so im playing in the 20 buy in tournament, wit 10 ppl. i raise with good cards and i raise with mediocre cardsi raise with suited connectors and i raise with pocketssoon after i lost half of my stackso its either i dont think i understand what aggression issomeone help me out and is being aggressive the way to go

You also have to mix in picking your spots, find out in the first twenty minutes who can and can't be moved off of a hand, in otherwords who is playing scared. Aggression is good but loose aggression will kill you, do you understand the difference? Now, lets say you get to where your a big stack, then open up a little bit, realize that every player knows that you can bust him and use that fear against them- at the same time if you attempt to steal with a 6-7 suited and the BB pushes all in you have to fold-follow these steps: Why am I raising with what I have?( What do you hope to accomplish? Stealing, get heads up for a race with pocket 7s or better,etc.) What does my opponent have that he is reraisng with? (Is he tight or loose? Will he do this with pocket 3s through 6s or A- 9 suited on up?) Reevaluate where you stand. ( What do you have? What have you invested? Is he a small enough stack that mathematically you have to call? This is where pot odds come in, and at times it is a gamble.) Sometimes, it is best to just let chips go and work on getting them back in the next few hands- which as a big stack is relatively easy. Call or fold. In your post you sound very nonchalant and that is nice in terms of table image in a live tourney, cool collected like what you are doing is an afterthought- but in this case i'm reading that you don't really undertand the whys of what you are doing- your just doing it. So, you have got the balls- now let's add some brains.

[shpaget 0]

I've seen this a few times in this thread.People here seem to think that aggressive is the opposite of tight.For lack of a better term, that's just plain stupid.You can be tight AND aggressive.DB's tactics do work very well in tournaments (I've used them with great success). You can't use them all, all the time, but it's a good general guideline - the key is you yourself have to be comfortable with the aggressive style, be able to read weakness or strength in your opponents before and after you bet, and have the discipline to know when to slam on the breaks. If you're not comfortable or convincing being aggressive you're just gonna come across as weak and get eaten alive.Early stages of a tournament, yes, tight is right...but when you do enter a hand, be aggressive about it. Change gears, yes, be passive once in a while just to mix things up, but mostly be aggressive. When you show aggression first, other tight players will usually not show aggression back, unless they got something.It's even better later in a tourney when antes make stealing more worthwhile.No passive player ever won a WPT or WSOP tournament. Tight, yes...loose, yes...maniac, yes... but never passive.