SUPER SYSTEM

Any one play strictly super system when in a cash game. if u do, can u give me any tips in playing it. if u make adjustments, what kind do u make and when. Thanks

Is not the super system to try to pick up as many small pots as possible until you are able to get someone for all their money while you are the underdog?

I've read and reread Super System a few times and it seems like after I read it my game gets a little worse (kind of like after a golf lesson)

If you adhere strictly to what it says in the book a few things happen:

(1) Anyone who has also read the book can read you pretty easily and you will be pretty predictable.

(2) You end up playing the cards more than you play your opponent.

I think the book has great recommendations for a good starting point, but you definitely need to make adjsutments based on who you are playing.

As far as which adjustments...

I'm probably not as qualified as others on this forum, but I genreally tend to play a little tighter and a little more aggressive because I tend to play on looser tables. Of course loosening up has its place on a very tight table.

super system helped my game loads initially but as people have said makes you too predictable to 'seasoned' opponenets, i play to win small pots, 90% of the time being very agressive and always going to hit hidden sets, samall flushes and straights to decieve an opponent. One aspect of doyles play that i dnt take on is getting your money in when you know you the underdog, unless you have the odds to validate a call.

^^^^ he doesnt intend to put his money in as underdog. But if he doesnt mind doing it if he is about 25% to win. This is because he has picked up enough small pots, that he can take a gamble where he is underdog and if he loses, he will just be down to about where he started. But when he wins that 1 out of the 4 tiems he tries it. He gains a large profit

I feel it makes me too aggressive

good explanation switch...

I Haven't read super system yet but have spoken to a couple of buddies who have. Mixed reviews on it by AG recommended NOT reading it as a newbie so until I feel more confident Ill just let it sit on the bookshelf.

I think there's a few adjustments that need to be made for the kind of games the majority of us are playing.

First, I should say I'm talking about the original Super System, not the sequel, and just the hold 'em sections (I haven't actually tried applying the stud / lowball strategies).

In general, I think the limit hold 'em advice holds up pretty well.

I think the biggest problem that you'll face applying the no-limit section, however, is that for the most part it seems to assume you'll be facing weak-tight opponents.

I'm sure that was the predominant style at the time it was written, but it's not any more - you won't always be able to run over the table like the book suggests, because we're likely to be facing a lot more loose players and calling stations, which in turn demand a tighter strategy. And when you play that tighter strategy, you're not in as many pots and therefore not picking up as many small pots.

In the right game I'm sure it can still work wonders, but I don't think we encounter those ideal conditions these days.

The overall message that you should punish weakness in other players and tread carefully when you stand to either win a small pot or lose a big one still rings true though.

i know what your saying is right but the way he phrases it in his book makes it sound like he knows it sometimes and gambles (even if poker is gambling) alot of his money even if he is a 4-1 dog, im not saying its a bad way to play i just dont like the idea that he will call it even if he doesnt have the odds. But yes his strategy obviously works and when applied correctly can bring dividends.
and ratman i would recomend it to a new player because it gives you confidence in your aggression, but id also recommend reading forums and internet articles on poker to suppliment it due to the fact that players are alot looser today and tighter strategys may have to be put in place as Oz mentioned.

thebilly16 said:

i know what your saying is right but the way he phrases it in his book makes it sound like he knows it sometimes and gambles (even if poker is gambling) alot of his money even if he is a 4-1 dog, im not saying its a bad way to play i just dont like the idea that he will call it even if he doesnt have the odds. But yes his strategy obviously works and when applied correctly can bring dividends.

Click to expand...

What you've got to remember is that when he talks about going into big pots as a dog, it's not just that pot and the odds it's offering that are being considered. It's actually a meta-game issue.

It's part of the overall strategy the book lays out: bossing the table about and winning lots of small pots so that when it comes time to play a big pot, you're "freerolling with the other man's money" and you can afford to go into a pot as a dog because, either way, you're still up on the whole session.

Now if you're not winning all those small pots then you're right, you shouldn't be happy about getting your money into a big pot as a dog.

yeah you put what i was trying to say into good wording, thanks I just dont think i could have the balls to play that way consistantly to be honest.

Like I said, in today's poker environment it's probably only a fine line between ballsy and stupid anyway

Which reminds me of the other thing we've gotta remember: Super System is not a low-stakes text.

Putting your opponent to a decision over a pot that could buy a car or pay the mortgage for the rest of the year, and putting your opponent to a decision over a pot that'll buy him a pack of cigarettes and the bus fare home are two very different things.

Does super system say that if you have openheanded stright draw on the flop and the person in front of you bid pot, you rerais allin? ( Lol, I love when people do that in cash game)