Super System still relevant

Hi folks,
Even though Super Systems was published some 30 years ago, do you think it is still relevant in today's cash games?

I don't play cash too often, but it seems that Doyle's philosophy of playing any reasonable cards, evaluate after the flop, then get all your money in there; is how Doyle did it and seems to be how the high stakes players still do it today.

Read "Positively Fifth Street" for Doyle's lament at having ever published the book. It did change the game and created a world full of players who use aggression or hyper-aggression to their advantage. I can only fantasize about the game Doyle knew as a young man, with careful and cautious opponents who would back down at aggressive bets. The propagation of aggressive play which was propelled by SuperSystem has changed the game and made it much harder. I think it's relevent in that it's the seed to the evolution of the modern game. But the strategy as laid out in the book will no longer work, as too many people are on to it.

GtW

It's not just the evolution of aggression, it's the twisted format it took.

Lizzy says: "Doyle's philosophy of playing any reasonable cards, evaluate after the flop, then get all your money in there". The key here is "after the flop". Agression today has evolved to: "read your odds chart pre-flop, if it's better than 50%, then get all your money in there". When that fails, get your money 'in there' with ATC.

That is one step short of insanity. I guess this type of play accounts for all the major swings in bankroll.. I read all the time players making a million in one sesson then losing it next session, then borrowing $50k then making another million......A tough way to make e-z money.

What? I recall Doyle talking about jamming draws where he's ~1/3 to hit but with folds he wins and everyone calls him lucky the 1/3 he wins at showdown. What does anything have to do with odds charts?

How did this thread get here?

That was my point. What Doyle wrote was true then about how he plays and why he does it. Player evolution online took it to a whole new level well beyond what he 'meant' in his book. Had more to do with glworden's comments about the evolution of 'aggression'.

maybe a mod will move it for Lizzy......

Lizzy,
I was serious. Read "Positively Fifth Street." Lots of background on how the game has evolved and boomed, and a good intro to major players. It's a dual subject book because McManus is covering a murder and playing in the WSOP. If you're just interested in the poker, you could skip the murder chapters and cut about a third of the book out.

Lots of discussion about the effect of SuperSystem, which was the root of your question. So read the book. I have an extra copy if you need it.
GtW

Well yeah because in NLHE basically aggression is how you win. You just seem to be implying that it's a bad thing.

I have sat on the rail watching Phil Ivey, Ziigmund, Durrr, Ozzy87 and some others at Full-Tilt. Sometimes it seems like they are playing a game of chicken. Any semi-resonable hand get played to the hilt: any straight draw, flush draw, two pairs, sets....all the money goes in. It's like watching a testosterone battle. The technique seems to be put the other person to the test; put the other person in a position where they have to make a HUGE decision. It seems like today's player have read the first 10 pages of the NLHE section Doyle wrote about being aggressive and live and die by that principle.

A kick boxing instructor always told me to always get off first. Meaning it's always better to throw the first punch or kick. Sometimes I think playing the button is the worst position, because now you are in a reactive state.

I find this post funny. It is like asking, "is the Bible still relevent today?"

What I'm about to say I've said a bunch of other times on here... but hell, what's one more?

Parts of Super System are still very relevant today. I assume from the context we're just talking about the NLHE section though.

Its overriding message that aggression is key still holds true today, as Zach points out.

Other than that though, SS describes games that are very different to the ones you'll find today. For starters, it was never meant to be a low-stakes text. And nevadanick does have a point - it was written largely with weak-tight opponents in mind. You probably don't want to try some of the things it suggests against the loose-passive or loose-aggressive players that are much more prevalent in today's game than weak-tight players.

Long story short: the key messages still apply, but you've got to apply them to the opponents that you're playing against rather than the ones Doyle wrote about.

Not a bad thing at all. It's the nature of today's nlhe games.

^ ^ ^ my point, exactly. I remember those days well since I started playing live in '69. Couldn't label those days as either 'good' or 'bad' - just different.

What is the subtitle of SS?

A Course in Power Poker.
I would say power poker is pretty prevalent today.
Also, SS was written for cash games mainly, not really tournaments. However people have taken the cash game advise and applied it incorrectly to tournaments. Most of the time they lose fast, but occasionally they get lucky and accumulate a large stack quickly they then use to beat everyone over the head until the luck runs out.

Actually seems like they're playing pretty optimally. You checked out how those players have done? I know durrrr and Ivey are killing the game.

If you think about it though it makes sense. I steal the blinds a ton at 200nl. That's because most villains don't adjust very well and fold too much. Next step is that the blinds should then 3-bet me with a wide range because my range can't stand the heat. Then I should 4-bet light for the same reason. Then they should 5-bet me light for the same reason. You see how it goes. Now obviously at any point another alternative is to do it lighter. Basically I could stop stealing as much but then I wouldn't be able to exploit that positional advantage as much. He could stop 3-betting me light and instead folding trash and raising good hands, but I would adjust and then his 3-bets wouldn't get action and I'd get free blinds when he has trash. Good aggressive players will go all the way until the opponent gives up. So if I 3-bet light and my opponent instead of giving up and folding also 4-bets light, It's in my interest to start 5-betting light instead of either 3-bet folding a ton or else not 3-betting as light. Most of us probably haven't played someone like that though and our opponents probably either fold their blinds too much or defend by flatting too much (which is great, much easier to own villains IP against a wide range than to judge 3-bet ranges and balance our 4-bets against it). But at that point most of the people they play are pretty solid apart from the table whale. It's just pretty obvious from watching and looking at results that the way they play (chicken as you describe it) is optimal against those players. I think all of them have done more than read the first 10 pages of power poker. Read some articles by Galfond (OMGCLAYAIKEN) and you'll see those players are thinking about a lot more than just "put[ting] the other person to the test".

A punch or kick hurts your opponent, putting money into the pot does not. That's the major difference.

I think that Super System still has many relevant points, though as others have pointed out the game has definitely changed since its release. While many of Doyle's suggestions would be suicidal in todays game (jamming the pot with any kind of flush/open ended straight draw) many of the general theories still apply. The most important thing IMO, is his explanation of the importance of betting. Callers and checkers rarely win, betters and raisers do. Without an aggressive image, whether it be LAG or TAG, against several good players you might as well play with your cards face up.
I feel that a more subdued version of his LAG style can be profitable at online micro stakes as many of the self proclaimed "TAGs" you run into are actually quite nitty and give up pots too easily. Doyle also talks about the importance of switching gears and not only playing tight or loose but switching between them. This allows you to get your big hands paid off because people will start to call you down lighter because of your aggressive image and just like Doyle says, you wont always be the one in there with the worst hand. Super System may be a bit outdated, but the core principles from the book have definitely helped the way that I, and im sure many others approach poker and improved their game. just my 2 cents

Yes poker has changed a tone since SS came out but i still think its contented is realavent to a certaion degree.
Just like every poker book it should be read and then adjusted to your own style.

Some of the things in that book are still relevant, but like anything else written on poker I wouldn't use the "get all your money into the pot" method of playing in every single situation. Depending on what type of game you're in, who you're playing, and how big your bankroll is (or how small your opponent's is) then the aggression can pay off in spades (bad pun!), but you have to figure out for yourself how to use it in different situations you might find yourself in.

i feel the same way especially when i miss the flop, i feel more comfortable making a block bet if i have a decent draw or trying to steal it than trying to call a large raise from the button with nothing..