|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 2/13/2012 9:10:11 PM PACIFIC |
 Ring game V. Short game, Carlk73, 24. Nov 2003 02:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| If you're playing against 10 players in a ring game are you generally a lot tighter with your pre-flop plays than you would be in a short game (e.g. 6 players)? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ring game V. Short game, Angel, 24. Nov 2003 02:47 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Generally yes. In a short handed game the blinds are coming around alot faster and so it becomes correct to play more liberally before the flop. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ring game V. Short game, Brian Starr, 24. Nov 2003 03:06 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Also, hands like Ax and all pock pairs go up in value, while suited connectors lose value, b/c you won't have as good of odds to draw. Position is important too, and you can raise any two faces or pock pair or A if u have the button. (That is simply preflop, obviously the game is extremely different post-flop as well). | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ring game V. Short game, Carlk73, 24. Nov 2003 03:29 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Thanks for those interesting points. I would have thought Ax dropped in value with less people playing as you want to pick up a flush draw with this hand, so the more people are in the game pre-flop the better odds you are getting to flop at leats a 4 flush draw? | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ring game V. Short game, SpaceAce, 24. Nov 2003 05:14 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 24. Nov 2003 03:29 Carlk73 wrote: > Thanks for those interesting points. I would have thought Ax dropped in value with less people > playing as you want to pick up a flush draw with this hand, so the more people are in the game > pre-flop the better odds you are getting to flop at leats a 4 flush draw? > He said AX, not AXs. I think he means playing AX just because it has an Ace in it. The kicker won't be a factor as often in a short-handed game because it is less likely that anyone else will share your Ace. AXs played purely for the flush potential would go down in value but since any Ace goes up in value in a short game you can play them suited or not. SpaceAce | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Wrong, URF, 24. Nov 2003 11:46 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 24. Nov 2003 02:47 Angel wrote: > Generally yes. In a short handed game the blinds are coming around alot faster and > so it becomes correct to play more liberally before the flop. I have never understood that argument. The blinds coming around faster has nothing to do with it. Why? Because when you are in a blind, you are in a blind, and when you are not, you are not. If you have a positive EV in a certain situation, then you have a positive EV, and if you have not, then you have not. You don't want to play a hand that has a negative EV just because the blinds are coming around faster, do you? That would make no sense. And if you have a positive EV with a certain hand in a certain situation, then you wouldn't throw that hand away just because the blinds happen to be coming around slower, do you? (Maybe if it is a volatile hand with a small edge and you want to keep your fluctuations down, but that is another question.) So, the blinds coming around faster has nothing to do with what hands are correct to play. But you DO play more hands in short handed games, and you do play a different set of hands, so what is the difference? Well, first of all, you are always either in a blind, in late position, or maybe late middle position, so of course you are going to be playing more hands! You always do in late position and in the blinds. Short handed is no different in that respect. Except... ...except that you will never get multiway pots where you can play things like 76s after multiple limpers. (So the set of hands that you can play changes.) ...except that there might be a slight difference between being first in in e.g. the cutoff in a short-handed game compared to a ten-handed game in that there might be more high cards left for those players who have not acted yet in a ten-handed game where many have folded, compared to the short-handed situation. But personally I don't believe that that effect is very big. But I do not know. If any one knows, please tell me. ...except that the mindset and hence the game of the other players probably is different in a short-handed game. And you have to adapt to how the others play. I can't think of anything else that changes from the same situation in a ten-handed game, compared to a short-handed game, than these three things, and one of them I believe is insignificant. And one of them should really have no impact on your game, it's just a fact. So there really only remains to adapt to your opponents game and mindset. Which you also should do anyway, really... BUT....there is one other thing that has an impact. In a ten-handed game, the short-handed situations that comes up might not have such a big impact on your bottom line, so that it might not matter that much if you do not play them correctly, or even that well. But in a short-handed game....well, do I need to say more? So, once again, the blinds coming around faster has nothing to do with it. -URF | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Ring game V. Short game, Aisthesis, 24. Nov 2003 14:40 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Hmmmm... some very interesting points here. First, a bit of a clarification on just what we're talking about. Truly shorthanded I would tend to view as 4 players or less (I know various people define the boundary differently), with 6- and 5-handed games beginning to take on some more shorthanded characteristics. As to playability, while I think URF overstated the point, it is true that negative EV is just negative EV--and folding always has 0 EV, as does checking unraised in BB. But the quality of hands definitely changes a lot. The clear cases have already been stated: 1) Pocket pairs are always raisable (I'd be inclined to take a good stab at the pot with any of them, although with some degree of caution if I get called or re-raised on the lower ones) 2) The "trouble hands" (KJo, etc.) are big hands and also raisable depending on circumstances. 3) low suited connectors are worthless I'm really not so sure about AX if the X is less than an 8. How about KX purely in terms of value? I'd be very interested in hearing more opinions here. Quite aside from whatever values the hands actually have, I do think it becomes more attractive in shortanded games to consider the "flow of the game" as really the primary factor. I've had some shorthanded games where it worked pretty well being quite picky about starting hands from anywhere except BB, and then just playing true keepers and BB fairly aggressively (I think that works pretty well if there is almost always a lot of activity from other players pre-flop). And if the players are playing kind of timidly, not seeming to realize that the game has changed a lot, I usually start making more frequent bids for the pot even with complete trash. At a really loose-aggressive shorthanded table, though, I hate to get involved unnecessarily with hands that don't have pretty good chances of holding up (but I do try to be pretty protective of my blinds in this situation since I'm not often playing outside of the blinds). | ||
| 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 | Find Vancouver Businesses |
|