Nocapszy
no clinkz 'til brooklyn
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2007
- Messages
- 4,517
- MBTI Type
- ENTP
I agree with everything except:
Phil Laak - My initial thought was ISTP.
wut
I agree with everything except:
Phil Laak - My initial thought was ISTP.
And as for Doyle...he's just like Matusow, total ESTP. His game is based totally on awareness of present-moment personal dynamics, not long term averages of all possible plays. (Listen to Doyle vs. Dwan discussing hands and reads if you want a great example of the S vs. N dichotomy on these perspectives.)
Look at the way Doyle will make plays like cold call a preflop raise with KK and then call down two or three barrels. Deeper chip stacks, as in a cash game, favor N players because the Sensor's "right now" read stands to lose more on the occasions when it's wrong. Doyle's strategy in deep stack cash is deliberately directed at minimizing pot size and taking advantage of overly aggressive players by snapping off 2- and 3-barrels. And he's really good at it.
If you've read his book Super/System, you'll know that he gained prominence in a time when cash games were played with much smaller stacks, and now he doesn't win nearly as much as he used to since the huge rash of extremely mathematical N-type internet players started to take over the scene, and both cash game and tournament stacks got much deeper in most games. "It's like playing against a computer," he says. How telling.
An N player can't hone in on the exact specifics of the current hand as well, and so good S players actually have stronger overall reads...but N players make up for this with a broader contextual understanding of average hand ranges by studying long-term play data. N wonders what the theory says the pieces of information he's given should say about what hands he should have and how often; S cuts this step out of the process and just reads directly into what he *does* have *this* time.
It's extraordinarily interesting to me how both approaches can produce huge success when used correctly.
i've watched brunson quite a bit and id like to say i have a similar style. what many players dont understand about it is that there is a theory behind it, and that is expected value should consider present conditions.
sure, i can make a standard raise on the button with no limpers and pocket aces, that'd be making it too easy on them! if they dont strike me as blind defenders, then theyll probably fold, ill make more when they hit top pair on a rainbow board and think they're playing against just another top pair who is using his position to be aggressive. if you hit a monster, it's very easy to play it like a draw that "just needs a bit more encouragement to fold" and let the super-aggressive players from the internet hang themselves.
combining superior post-flop play, awareness of the environment and other players body language makes it more profitable to confuse your opponents with unorthodox and often times "counter-theory" play. 9 times out of 10, i can guess fairly closely what they have and they have absolutely no idea what im holding. makes for lots of opportunities to trap players into pushing with second-best but "i know i got that bastard beat this time!" hands. also, this image leads others to bluff against me less often because i will check a big pocket pair that i hit a set with 2-3 times despite a scary board if i know they arent drawing. likewise, players often give away free cards because they're afraid, letting me complete drawing hands for practically nothing.
really, the only downside is you have to be very sharp about when your plays have gone awry and lay down big hands, and it's difficult to apply game theory because you cant gauge from their reaction to you. fortunately, if you play deceptively then your opponents cant milk you because they didnt know how strong you were, sometimes you can get away with mistakes on the turn and river for cheap.
Would you like to play heads up some time? It doesn't have to be for money; I just always enjoy a good game.
Well, this is dependent on two factors: stack size and opponent tendencies...
....Well sure, this is the basic loose aggressive theory. Counterintuitive play isn't always the best idea, though--it still needs to be justifiable from an EV standpoint against your opponent's probable range, but I'm sure you know that. Honestly though, it doesn't really matter whether you play tight or loose, as long as you know what image you're projecting at any given time and how to use that to your advantage. There's no need to make weirdo plays specifically to create a crazy image.
I can't fully explain it but I simply don't feel an SP vibe from Doyle. I just don't. ISTJs can be just as wild and out there as any of the STs. I knew a guy (who was in love with my sister) - he was a completely inscrutable ISTJ, a risk taker, into everything, highly intelligent and had the sorts of life stories that one simply cannot manufacture.
I can't make this less vague, but Doyle feels "open-closed" even when he's making decisions. He also casts an Fi-Te vibe. Not to say a T can't effectively utilize (though unconsciously) the inferior shadow of their primary four functions (i.e. be a Ti user with strong undercurrents of Te).
I just have to hold on to that. He's like no SP I've ever watched or known, but smacks strongly of SJs I've had experience with.
But not Doyle.
i'm reading his first book.
he's not a J. he has that whole spiderweb speech patterns thing going on. very P. very Ti.
but there's no freakin' way he's an extrovert though.
I can't stand Bellandhe. I thought Matusow was hard to take, but he's just a nerd really. Bellande is all "look at me!" quasi-tough guy. Ugh.
well that's what you get with an ESFP poker player.
the dude not only wants everyone to respect him, but he wants them to like him too.
most of the time, i've only seen one or the other or neither.