Doyle Brunson's "Supersystem"

[Poker_Vendetta]

How is this book? (Yeah, this is a pretty bland topic here but I just want to get some info on it)

[ballbp]

Hey man what's up? I myself haven't read it but you hear everyone mention it in the "need to read" conversations. Doyle himself says "it makes a bad player good and a good player great", but I saw someone post on one of these threads that it might be starting to get out-dated so hopefully someone else can give you more info but I'm sure it wouldn't hurt to read. cya

[Poker_Vendetta]

Yes, more recently I've picked up it gives excellent--very aggressive tips of no-limit rings games and so on, but for tournaments it is simply not effective. I should try and read it sometime though, just for the heck of it.

[mindgame]

You know, I'm glad you asked....

This Book came out first in about 1978, I think. I was just starting to play serious poker (my definition thereof would involve putting at risk a sum about equal to a week's pay), and books were hard to find. I heard about GBS (Gambler's Book Store) in Vegas and they were selling it, sort of home-published on 8x11, for around $200-$250. A tad too steep for me at the time. I saw it recently at Borders, for god's sake, for $30. I figure I'd better buy it in sort of self defense. The info is so old that the really, really serious guys had it 15 or 20 years ago, but if you can get it at any general purpose bookstore you'd better find out what it says.

Conclusion. It's okay. I play limit hold'em. Bunson detests it. His contempt is barely disguised, inasmuch as he outright says that it' a game for those who have neither the "courage" nor "heart" [his words] for the cadillac of games: no-limit hold'em. So, really, how much help are you going to get? Well I'm going to answer Bunson: limit poker is played--when played well--by very careful, cautious, shrewd individuals who don't have $50-100 grand to horse around with. We're playing with stuff we had to earn, one dollar at a time. Seperating these sorts from their money is a painstaking and fairly difficult task.

I don't really want to spend $30 in the first place for a book in which 80% of the material is on games I don't play. The limit hold'em section (written primarily by Bobby Baldwin) will not make anyone a great player, no matter what Bunson claims. His best advice is to learn to read your opponents, but that advice is given with the caveat that the skill is more art than science. So watch, pay attention, remember...and work with progressively refined guesses.

There is some discussion of which hands to play and which not to and where and when you should play them. I'm certain that I could memorize every word of the section and I still wouldn't last 2 hours in a tough game at $200-400. But Bunson would say that's because I lack courage and heart, right? I'd say it's because I couldn't sit down at the table with $10, 000.

Well Bunson won't be giving my money back any time soon, but I'd sure tell anyone at all that you'd be a lot better off investing in Sklansky's two Hold'em books (I don't know about the new one on tournament play) and then rounding out your education by studying his general one Modern Poker Theory. At least that way you'd be able to use all the material you're paying for.

[Poker_Vendetta]

Very true. I don't really play much limit myself, as I simply don't get the rush and I'm a complete idiot who plays with fake money so regard for it is actually pretty comical. And limit is a game where you, for the most part, try and protect your money. I mean it's a lot more defense than NL but it's ok, I don't hate limit...I just find it a little more, "boring" but I believe most serious players probably began them by playing limit but I really wouldn't know.

[JimN]

Super System was the first serious poker book I read. Since then, I've read Theory of POker, and Lee Jones' book. I am now starting to reread Super System's sections on holdem.

I think Brunson's descriptions of no-limit are terrific. For someone who has only played holdem for a few months, I also think the limit section is very good. What I like about the book is that it doesn't spend too much time on mechanistic approaches to starting hands, odds, etc. Brunson's real value, I think, is more general strategy, and therefore, easier to adopt to various situations. I'm not that experienced, but my gut reaction is that, while other books might be better for getting started, the Brunson book can take you farther in the long run.

[mindgame]

I think the first poker book anyone reads, regardless of who wrote it, is a real eyepopper. Suddenly you are exposed to a level of thinking, observing, and analyzing the game that you weren't even aware existed--or were perhaps only vaguely aware. End result is that you get more out of the first book than any other you read, so you tend to over-rate its quality.

Well you like the no-limit section, and I won't disagree that the best no-limit player who ever lived could probably write a hell of a book accidently. But the book, overall, I still maintain is of marginal value. I will concede, though, that it's a much easier read than Sklansky, whose work can fairly be described as tedious--and for the beginner you get a lot more bang for reading, say, three or four hours than you would reading either of Sklansky's hold'em books. I mean, what good is it, really, knowing the ranking of the top 60 hands when you only figure on playing the top 20-25 97% of the time?

My critique is that the book isn't what it proports to be. It isn't any "super system" that will turn anyone into a top poker player. No book can do that. Knowlege can't even do that. Some guys are gifted readers, behavioral psychologists of the first order who can't even explain the subconscious and intuitive workings behind their best plays or moves. Read all you want, but nobody is going to beat them.

[Dave B]

I do OK and havent read a book yet. I am very good w/ math and odds and observant of what others do to be successful. Do you think that a book can hamper developing your own approach? Is there a benefit to being self taught? It has been a concious decision for me not to read anything, but to develope my own style and strategies.

Any thoughts? If it aint broke dont try to fix it or should I do more reading and less playing?

[JimN]

If you are independent enough to question the usefulness of a book, then you are definitely independent enough to read the book and then discard what you don't like. I can't see any possible harm from being exposed to more viewpoints. But I definitely agree that you should read everything skeptically. Some books flat out contradict each other. Ultimately, you have to find your own style. If nothing else, though, reading a book (particularly the well-known books) is useful just because it could help you understand how others think.

[mindgame]

Probably the best are self-taught. I'm pretty sure Dolly Bunson wasn't reading a whole bunch of poker books--for one thing, there were only about a dozen or so out there and they weren't all that good (the exception being Moorehead's Winning Poker).

But Bunson went broke or close enough to it a few times getting to the top and learning what a few good books could teach you. I say read as much as you can and play the game in a way you feel works for your temperment and personality. One thing is sure, the advice above is right on. It can't hurt to know what other players are likely to be thinking or how they're playing certain types of hands from the various positions.

[Poker_Vendetta]

Yeah, I do not think I am good or will be seriously good but I WOULD like to BE good without reading any books. But if I had to read one I'd read Doyle's book, b/c I play NL the most and, by my understanding, it teaches VERY aggressive play which I think is needed to defeat ANY opponent in any competitive situation. I believe the concept of competition is to attack the opponent, and to have control of the game. That is basically what Sun Tzu felt and I see that poker, football, and war all have similarities in the competitive "Battle" type moves.