Discussion: Low stakes Vs High Stakes Player Level of Play

Guma · #1 (**permalink**) 08-12-2006, 08:18 AM

A friend loaned me Doyle Brunson's Super System Book today and I was reading the first chapter when I came across this little tidbit...

Excerpt quoted from Doyle Brunson's Super System Book

Yet, paradoxically, Poker becomes easier the higher the stakes of the game, at least in games where Professionals are invovled.
Down in the low-limit games, the Professionals who are involved don't have much money, and what they do have they're trying to keep for a stake and to live on. So they're playing the best Poker they know how to play.
But tip in the high stakes games you encounter big businessmen, bookies, hotel owners, millionaires...and they're playing for entertainment. And they are not playing hard.

I see so many times on here people talking about not moving up to high stakes games because of the level of play or if you aren't beating low stakes then don't move up.

There are so many rebuttals to argue this point either way so let's hear them.

Discuss

Harlequin011 · #2 (**permalink**) 08-12-2006, 08:21 AM

Is this Super System 1 or 2?

gpc · #3 (**permalink**) 08-12-2006, 08:45 AM

I don't understand the difference of High vs Low stakes.

I don't have much poker experience but I feel it is my job to get as many chips as possible. To do this I figure out who I want to stay away from, who I want to mix it up with, and what my cards are. No matter what the stakes, there is always a chance to have a mixuture of professional and entertainment players; some good and some bad. In Super System I, Brunson refers to the texture of the game and to figure that out is very important. Once you have that you just check, raise or fold to win as much as you can if that is your goal. I say the stakes only matter based on your bankroll.

ACE'S FULL · #4 (**permalink**) 08-12-2006, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harlequin011

Is this Super System 1 or 2?

If memory serves me its Super System 1. That still confuses me to this day. I try to follow the rule of thumb with bankroll management. So many X the BB type thing. I still get uncomfortable when I jump up to a higer level. Dont want to lose what took me so long to build.

jojobinks · #5 (**permalink**) 08-12-2006, 08:48 AM

he was writing in:

the quality and style of professional play has changed much in the last 5 years, by all accounts. doyle's style WAS organized around shooting at all the small pots, to provide some cushion for when the guy happens to have a big hand. more and more players know what they're doing today, and are likely to play back at you. at the higher limits, there are by all accounts are more better players, who will be more likely to trap you when they have it and bluff you successfully when they don't.

hachkc · #6 (**permalink**) 08-12-2006, 10:00 AM

Did anyone catch Doyle's comment about his next book while he was commentating at WSOP Final Table.

Phil asked him what he's up to and if he was working on SS3 or something. Doyle indicated that his next book is probably going to be something along the lines of "The New Hold'em" because the style of play has changed so much in the last few years.

hunterking · #7 (**permalink**) 08-12-2006, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hachkc

Did anyone catch Doyle's comment about his next book while he was commentating at WSOP Final Table.

Phil asked him what he's up to and if he was working on SS3 or something. Doyle indicated that his next book is probably going to be something along the lines of "The New Hold'em" because the style of play has changed so much in the last few years.

yeah, i was pretty stoked when he said that!!!

OnTheButton · #8 (**permalink**) 08-12-2006, 11:01 AM

Remember SS1 was written as poker was just making it's way out of back rooms, and was just becoming mildly popular in the casinos. There were not nearly as many players in general as there are now since the "million dollar" carrot was dangled that put final tables on TV almost 24 hours a day.

Doyle's book was groundbreaking for it's time, discussing betting strategy at the table against a host of different playing styles, before there really were established proven styles to play against.

The purpose of the book was to introduce a selectively aggressive play style against players unaware of this as a potential table image. Grabbing up small pots with overbets, and squirreling away other players chips to pay for the larger calls and raises when the time comes. Make the players regret tangling with you on the few pots you play.

The "system" is very similar to one I've employed in betting in BlackJack for almost 20 years. "Use the house (or in this case; players) money to bet with as soon as you can."

However today, with the wealth of poker knowledge out there written by pros, having Doyle's perspective is still a valid weapon in your arsenal when the circumstances suit it, but as a sole approach to the game is quite defeatable. (Except when playing against Doyle!)

Button Potato · #9 (**permalink**) 08-12-2006, 11:02 AM

I would tend to agree with his assessment. When I moved up to higher stakes, I assumed the crazy suck-outs would end or at least diminish. Unfortunately I found the same donkeys - but with deeper pockets.

tomb1 · #10 (**permalink**) 08-12-2006, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Button Potato

I would tend to agree with his assessment. When I moved up to higher stakes, I assumed the crazy suck-outs would end or at least diminish. Unfortunately I found the same donkeys - but with deeper pockets.

And that's a good thing most of the time, isn't it?

BTW [slight threadjack], what was the starting chip stack composition at the ME this year?