|
||
|
||
|
Server Time: 11/20/2008 9:24:02 PM PACIFIC |
 Short handed games, Boftx, 10. Dec 2003 10:34 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I have been playing the 6-handed games almost exclusively lately. I find them to be extremely profitable for me. Scanning thru the upcoming issue of CardPlayer I came across the article by Roy West titled "Make a Note" and he devotes about half of it to short-handed games. His observations coincide perfectly with what I have experienced and I would strongly recommend reading this article. The one thing I would add, is that I think there is less "data overload" in a 6-handed game. That is, it is easier to keep track of betting patterns, etc with only 4 or 5 opponents instead of 9. Therefore all the players tend to be more observant and you can make plays that would otherwise be futile at a full ring game. Jim | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Short handed games, WilliamS, 10. Dec 2003 10:43 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I enjoy short handed games as well. I do think there are great advantages and disadvantages to these games ADV 1)Quicker reads on opponents Especially online it is easier to isolate a players style in a short handed game 2)The odds simply aren't there for people to profitably play drawing hands against you (in most situations) 3)There is more room for advanced plays as a lot of pots won't be multiway DISADV 1)Bad habits Once a person has adjusted to this style of play it is often hard to switch back to full table strategy 2)Playing more than one table is now much harder to do. At least in my experience, I would rather play full table games if I'm playing multiple tables due to the fact many decisions short handed are player read dependent where at a loose passive full table game the game can be played "by the book" 3)Increased Variance- I find that things tend to change exponentially in a shorthanded game especially if you are playing at limits above your comfort level Anywhoo thats my take Will | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Short handed games, Boftx, 10. Dec 2003 11:06 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree pretty much with what you have seen. However, I think there is less advantage to trying to play two tables at once simply because the hands are coming much faster. There is no need to play two tables to get the same hand rate. I have found that pot sizes are almost comparable overall between full and short games thanks to the increase in aggression at the short games. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Short handed games, Aisthesis, 11. Dec 2003 00:01 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree with all of the above but would add one advantage and one disadvantage: Disadvantage first: Higher risk. One must also of course take some big risks at a full table but can be a lot more selective in when to do it. Shorthanded, you've pretty much got to be willing to take big risks frequently and can lose a lot of money quickly even with good play. Advantage: It fulfills the need for ACTION! I know this is a really horrible need, but it can get pretty tedious at a full table waiting and waiting for the right hands, the right flops, the right opponents, etc. And a good shorthanded game or heads-up is a really good way to break up the monotony once in a while. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Short handed games, Formless, 10. Dec 2003 11:05 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I enjoy shorthanded poker much more than 10 handed. A couple pitfalls to keep in mind, though: -Collusion is more harmful to you, and more frequent I think, in a shorthanded game. Two good players playing footsies in a 10 handed game won't kill you, but in a 5 handed game you are toast. -Rake. In a full table game you get to freeroll on any amount over the rake cap, so you may pay less rake. Some cardrooms give you a break on shorthanded play, others pretend to give you a break. I think if you pick your tables carefully you can make good money and have a lot of fun playing shorthanded. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Short handed games, WilliamS, 10. Dec 2003 11:42 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I was mainly speaking of online, but played quite a while at Tunica shorthanded this weekend. Only got charged 1 dollar rake at 15/30 game. Good thing too, higher rake in that game would have been no point in playing. Will | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Short handed games, Russ, 10. Dec 2003 13:52 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Let me be the first to break away and say that I prefer the 10 seaters to 6 for the following reasons. 1. BLINDS BLINDS BLINDS - If the cards are crummy, you are bound to lose more just because you are paying 40% more in blinds. 2. LIMPERS - You are far more likely to catch multiple limpers in a 10 seater, and you are far more likely to just collect blinds if you pull the nuts on the flop. 3. RAKE - Online poker rooms like you playing the 6 seated games because of the volume of hands/hour = more collected rake. Granted, most sites limit the rake they can take based off players seated, but at last my friend told me it is about 17% more profitable than 10 seaters. At the end of the day, it's all about how comfortable you are. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Short handed games, Boftx, 10. Dec 2003 14:32 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| on 10. Dec 2003 13:52 Russ wrote: [ .... ] > At the end of the day, it's all about how comfortable you are. That is a very true statement. I went to the short-handed games because I needed a break from being drawn-out on. From my SnG experience I have found I like a table best when there are 4 to 6 players total. Once I started looking at the actual odds in effect I liked it even more. Jim | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Short handed games, Dupree, 10. Dec 2003 14:30 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I have just started (in the past week) to play at 6 player tables and am quite happy with my results. I avoided these tables for a while. The aggression was overwhelming before I got comfortable playing. Now I am quite comfortable sitting at a 6 player table. I believe that I can even turn a profit at these tables which I havent been able to achive yet in 10 player games. Some of my initial observations, both good and bad... First there are less players so less cards get dealt initially (12 instead of 20) so you should expect a 40% decrease in crap that can river you. This assumes you will not be playing any crap. The players at low limt still play crap, but literally there is less out against you. Second, the aggression at these tables will definatly prepare onefor some of the aggression that I expect at higher limit tables. Third, I do find it easier to figure out who is playing what and how they bet. 10 players can be a bit to much to grasp, especially when they are all unpredictable. Fourth the swings are greater, you can go broker quicker due to the shorter rounds and the increased agression. In a 1/2 game, you can find yourself sinking $10 in a pot befor yopu are convinced that you are beat. On flip side, this can also lead to larger cash-outs. my 2 cents Dupree | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Short handed games, Boftx, 10. Dec 2003 14:40 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| Once again that coincides with my perception of the game. Once you get used to the aggression, you can quickly decide to dump a hand or take down a good pot with holdings you would never consider playing at a full ring. The precept of maximizing winnings and minimizing losses takes on additional force in these games. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Short handed games, Dupree, 10. Dec 2003 14:53 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I agree 100%, even with the increased blinds, you get real sharp in picking your spots, maximizing your wins and minimizing losses. Marginal hands can go a bit further. It is to the point that I feel kind of crowded in a 10 player game and I do not consider 6 players "short handed." 4 players is a short handed game as far as I am concerned. It was0 in a 6 handed game where I first was able to say..this guy is raising with crap. I only have a mediocre hand, but I am pretty sure it is better than his crap. I still can't do it often enoungh, but to be able to do it at all (correctly) is a big step for me. Question though.. Is it me or do you find 6 player tables have a somewhat higher caliber of players. Nothing drastic mind you, just noticable... Dupree. | ||
| Return to Thread List | ||
| Re: Short handed games, Boftx, 10. Dec 2003 15:03 | ||
| View ( Message | Thread ) | Return to Thread List | |
| I think it is more a case that with only 6 players the gap between skill levels present is more sharply defined and the quick pace of the game allows you to pick up on it faster. Having said that, I do feel there *might* be proportionately more observant players in the short games compared to the full games. That is, having 3 observant players in a 6-handed game is a hell of a lot better for play than having only 3 such players at a full ring. | ||
| 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 |
|