|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 12/3/2008 10:57:03 PM PACIFIC |
 Is the Internet the place for short-handed poker?, Mike Caro, 27. Aug 2002 08:48 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I like short-handed poker. In fact, I prefer two-handed (heads-up) poker, and anything more than four-handed feels crowded to me. Often, I'll sit at a nine-handed hold 'em game and tease that we should divide it into three tables. "There are three perfectly good poker games here, and we're all crowded at this table," is what I say. Sometimes this stimulates a heads-up challenge from someone who likes the fast pace of short-handed play. Remember, in short-handed games, you not only get to play more pots when you're dealt a hand, because there a fewer opponents who could have you beat, but there are many more hands dealt per hour. This means lots of action. While hand selection is still important in short-handed games, it's not nearly as crucial as in full-handed games. Most of your profit in short-handed games comes from making the right decisions AFTER you enter the pot. Most of the profit in full-handed games comes from playing the right hands to begin with. Anyway, here's what I'm thinking... It's fairly hard to get short-handed games going in real-world casinos. You can start a game short-handed, but it's apt to fill up. Real-world casinos can't easily afford to spread many short-handed games, because they have fixed costs to contend with: Each table requires a dealer and there may be issues of limited tables. These issues of cost don't apply on the Internet. So, what's your opinion? Do you think that if we pushed short-handed games on the Internet, where it's more cost effective, that we could popularize that method of playing poker? Should we? Straight Flushes, Mike Caro | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Is the Internet the place for short-handed poker?, Mark, 27. Aug 2002 09:46 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 27. Aug 2002 08:48 Mike Caro wrote: > I like short-handed poker. In fact, I prefer two-handed (heads-up) poker, and > anything more than four-handed feels crowded to me. > > Often, I'll sit at a nine-handed hold 'em game and tease that we should divide > it into three tables. "There are three perfectly good poker games here, and > we're all crowded at this table," is what I say. Sometimes this stimulates a > heads-up challenge from someone who likes the fast pace of short-handed play. > Remember, in short-handed games, you not only get to play more pots when you're > dealt a hand, because there a fewer opponents who could have you beat, but there > are many more hands dealt per hour. This means lots of action. > > While hand selection is still important in short-handed games, it's not nearly > as crucial as in full-handed games. Most of your profit in short-handed games > comes from making the right decisions AFTER you enter the pot. Most of the > profit in full-handed games comes from playing the right hands to begin with. > > Anyway, here's what I'm thinking... > > It's fairly hard to get short-handed games going in real-world casinos. You can > start a game short-handed, but it's apt to fill up. Real-world casinos can't > easily afford to spread many short-handed games, because they have fixed costs > to contend with: Each table requires a dealer and there may be issues of limited > tables. > > These issues of cost don't apply on the Internet. So, what's your opinion? Do > you think that if we pushed short-handed games on the Internet, where it's more > cost effective, that we could popularize that method of playing poker? Should > we? > > Straight Flushes, > Mike Caro I love short-handed games, even 5-6 handed games, (they're the only ones I can consistantly beat ). I've noticed (at one poker site in particular) that many people in the low-limit games keep searching for shorthanded tables (occasionally I'm one of them). I can't speak for the larger limits, but there is already a short-handed, low-limit sub-culture out there. Whether or not we could popularizie it? I think that there is already a small following that could grow quite large if people had the opportunity to try it. Eventually, it would become popular online, but never in casinos. The players would want it, but the casinos wouldn't provide it. In order for a casino to start shorthanded games, instead of full-handed, the rake would have to be larger to offset the casino's lost earnings. The increased rake would drive away most players. On the other hand, online gaming is becoming quite popular, and if many, many players stayed away from the casinos and voiced their opinions about wanting short-handed tables, the casinos would eventually have to comply. This would most likely be a long, slow process. Or maybe they'd tear down the card rooms and put up dime slots, i don't know. It all depends on how big of a % a cardroom's profit means to a casino. Its probably not that much since most casino's provide much more room to slots and table games than to a card room. If casino's won't provide it, shorthanded games will never become mainstream. Mark | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Is the Internet the place for short-handed poker?, Eric Bush, 28. Aug 2002 06:00 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I would agree that theinternet is where short handed gamers will find most of their opportunities, and playing in these short handed lo-limit games on the internet is great practice for casino play. In the past I've been very negative of short handed play, but that has all changed of late. Over the past couple of months I have increased my time at short handed tables and increased my winnings. Because of this an interesting thing has been happening. I'm able to increase my profit when a full table gets shorthanded. I believe this is in most part due tothe fact that I am able to adjust my play to the now shorthanded table before other players. I used to go into a shell when a game got down to 5 or 6 players in the casino, now I can't wait for it to happen the next time I'm playing. I do believe though, to answer the original question, that regular shorthanded games will only be found on the internet. Eric B | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Is the Internet the place for short-handed poker?, BritDawg, 29. Aug 2002 00:12 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hi Mike, It seems to me that one of the main fears of many online players is that they might be running up against collusion. I am not in a position to properly judge whether those fears have any basis. Although I am aware that some/all sites do have software that may be able to identify it, whether losses incurred as a result of collusion are then ever refunded is a moot point. Furthermore, 'soft' collusion, whereby players exchange info on their hole cards, must be extremely difficult to identify, I 'd have thought. My point is this: in terms of internet collusion short-handed games seem much more risky than full ring games (of course, heads up is safest of all in this regard!). If two or more players are actually colluding in a full ring game then the damage is spread across the whole table, whereas in a short-handed game one particular player could presumably be made into a target. Personally, I am reluctant to get involved in short-handed games on the internet for two reasons: 1. Some worries about collusion 2. Sadly, I'm completely rubbish at short-handed play! Personally, I don't feel that short-handed ring play on the internet is a particularly good area for promotion, although you are much better qualified to judge than I. Having said that, I feel that heads-up tourneys could well have a bright online future, since the knock-out 'US Open tennis style' format (that was recently used at the World Heads Up Championship in Vienna) has always seemed quite an exciting one to me. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Is the Internet the place for short-handed poker?, borisv69, 30. Aug 2002 22:21 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think there is a time and a place for short handed games and some sites I have checked do have 5 person max tables. As far as smaller games I think the rake would kill you. With 3 player it seems like 2 it too small to actually make money unless a weaker player just sits their and contonues to donate. I think for a player like you short handed games where you can use the theory and phsychology(sp) of poker can help. Me, being a beginning player like full tables where it depends on which hands I play. With a 5 person table you can bet bad hands, where a full table you cant because of percentages. Final thought: Internet sites should try short handed games. But let poker player that are GENIUS enough to handle a full table do so(just joking, Mr. Caro) | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| POKER FORUM HOME | POKER FORUM | LINK TO US | ARCHIVE | ONLINE POKER | Copyright 2002, United Poker Forum |
|
Getting Started |
UPF Tournaments |
Poker News, Views, Rules |
Poker Strategy & Psychology |
Money and Bankroll Poker Bonuses & Promotions | World Series of Poker (WSOP) | Play Online Poker | Poker Odds & Statistics | Tournament Poker | Poker Books, Videos & Learning Tools Looking for a Poker Game | Poker Bad Beats | Not Quite Poker | Quizzes and Polls | Forum Suggestions & Bugs |
|
|
|
|
Interesting Links: Online Poker | Free Poker Games | United Poker Network |
|