I read doyle's Super System back in the day and used that as the basis for my poker strategy from high school to mid-twenties. In talking to some friends who play competitively, they say SS is just super out dated and you would get eaten alive at any cash game. I'm curious what, in your opinion, is the "standard" playing strategy that is most effective in today's poker rooms? I'm curious if that answer is different online vs in person.
The "standard" strategy is to play GTO (game theory optimal). There are solvers out there (like GTO Wizard) that show you the "optimal" play for every situation, which is used as a baseline, and then players deviate to exploit specific player tendencies.
GTO trees are far too complex to fully memorize, so nobody can play perfect GTO. But you can do a lot of solver work to get reasonably close.
I won a tournament on a cruise against a guy who I think was doing this. He was one of the people at the table who had a consistent tell and that helped me beat him heads up.
Maybe not GTO specifically, but I got the impression that he was playing the math and doing it well (especially since it came down to the two of us at the end).
The tell was a very common one. Anytime he liked what he saw, either hole cards or on the flop, he would quickly glance at his chip stack (thinking about a bet). Probably didn't even realize he was doing it. When it got to head to head, if he glanced at his chips...I'd fold early. If he didn't, I'd bet into him until he eventually folded.
Super System is old, but I wouldn't call it outdated. Definitely still worth a read. The more books you've read, the bigger your tool set. The key here is that it works in both directions because each style you learn, is a style you may recognize other players using. The pitfall of Super System, is by now, everyone's read it, and it's quite easily recognized:
- limp-shoving under the gun
- always trying to go on runs
- over playing suited connectors (JTs specifically)
But, you still get the advantage of being able to recognize it. There's lots of good wisdom in there that isn't as prescriptive either. Read as many books as you can. Poker is information warfare.
I thought it was outdated to the point of useless when I read it in the mid aughts. I didn't find any real wisdom in it either. I'm open but pretty confused as to what you think someone could get out of it today.
I certainly would not use it prescriptively as I said originally. I wouldn't use any poker book prescriptively. You make your own style and pull pieces from others just like any other trade. I like the way Joe does X.. I like the way Jane does Y.. I have my own way to do Z. That becomes my style.
There are nuggets of wisdom in every poker book I've read even if I disagree with some parts or some are just flat out wrong. Super System, in particular, provided insights into the mind of one of the greatest player of all time. I particularly liked the psychological view on things. If nothing else, it provides context for the ones that came before you. Its been 15+ years since I read it, but beyond the fundamentals, I recall picking up (hopefully not misattributing anything here)...
- a quick, in-your-head method of calculating odds based on outs
- psychology of playing runs and others perceptions of you at the table
- the pitfalls of playing AA
- a realistic look at "tells"
- the general psychology of aggression
- how/where tight players make money and how/where aggressive players make money
Super System is the seminal book of poker. It is the book that your opponents are most likely to have read. As I alluded in my original comment, you wouldn't want to be the only person at the table who doesn't recognize someone playing the super system to the letter. IIRC, the goal was to make the player just appear lucky. It was meant to be confusing. It's like reading K&R as a C programmer. Sure, some of the information might not hold up today, but it provides a lot of context.
Thanks. Maybe it's because I read all the more modern books, the 2+2 library etc, before reading Super System that I don't really appreciate it. I guess also because I was a volume-based online player.
But I do really appreciate hearing your perspective on it.
No idea, obviously you can see I'm a n00b and not a profitable poker player but on the strategy side, and this is very oversimplified, but you should be folding a lot of the time other than when you get AA-22, AK, AQ, AJ, AT, KQ, KJ, QJ, JTs, T9s, 87s you call or 3 bet pre-flop because you have good odds. When you're up against tight players you can make a small bluff on the flop and scare them away most of the time, if they raise you fold though. Position is very important in the game, when you're on the button you have odds in your favor because everyone else has to check or bet before you so you play more loose and aggressive in that position and more tight and passive in early position. There is no one single strategy to memorize and apply, that's why it's great. 5 minutes to learn the game, a lifetime to master.
> No idea, obviously you can see I'm a n00b and not a profitable poker player but on the strategy side
Sorry, why are you answering a question if your first response is “no idea”? Am I missing something? If you have little information, my feeling is that your response is at best just BS? I know that sounds very rude, I’m sorry for that.
You’re probably right, I am just sharing what I have been studying and from my experience playing but I’m a losing player so it should be taken with that context.
Don't punish honesty. He gave enough information up front for you to easily ignore him if you weren't interested a low-confidence/low-expertise response. Far better that than confident, unhedged BS.
It's become a lot more difficult to win online since online poker was banned in the USA. The USA sat at a huge net loss online and every other country profited.
I don't think so. I don't play nearly as often as I used to, but I still do alright. Though, I usually play tournaments where "game theory optimal" can only get you so far. There is a lot more nuance in a tournament where your style should change as it progresses.
When I left (or, got shut out, so to speak) in 2011 the games were getting a lot tougher, less big fish and more reg on reg with marginal if any edge, where you're essentially just paying the rake (-%rakeback).
Played a random game the other day and I love it! What’s the best way to learn and get involved? I just want to play socially, happy to lose a little money each time as the cost of fun.
I like reading BlackRain79 and watching his YouTube videos. Nothing beats experience though. Start playing without money for a long time first to learn the rules of the game. I actually downloaded a Game Boy emulator for iOS and the ROM for GBA World Poker Tour (2005). After playing that for a long time I finally got the basics like muscle memory of knowing what hand beats what and what possible combinations could be out there based on the board cards, stuff like that. Then from there if you live in a legalized state like I do you could start playing the lowest stakes online like .01/.02 NL.
Probably a dumb question but when I watch poker on TV I see that the aggressive players tend to win, so why do the losers let themselves get intimidated?
Oversimplifying for sure but if you're loose and aggressive against a tight aggressive player, you're going to make them fold most of the time and win a small amount by applying pressure on bluffs but every once in a while if you get too aggressive and they call you because they have a monster hand then you get wrecked
Aggression generally wins the day but pay attention to the size of the bets and their position. Generally, you want to make a lot of small bets to show action (they can fold for a minimal investment) and leverage table position to make other players make hard decisions.
In poker, like in trading, the key is knowing when you have an edge and being aggressive but also knowing when you have a losing have and cut your losses. It's the balance that makes a good player/trader.
what do you think about OP's 40% VPIP? It seems to me that in low-stakes online play you'd want to play tighter than that, but I know very little about poker strategy beyond what I've absorbed from seeing people talk about it.
It's a fairly meaningless stat without knowing the number of the players at the table. At a quick glance he seems to be playing 6-max, but sometimes 3-handed. In any case 40% is within the reasonable range for 6-max.
Assuming they are playing 6 max with full tables 40% vpip is egregious and I do not see how they could have a winning strategy playing like that. (Looking at their results they are not winning).
To be fair, 1k hands is a pretty meaningless sample - I think most pros would say you need at least 50k if not 100k hands for the results to be any reliable signal as to whether or not a player is actually winning or losing in the long run.