short-handed

[peterbirks]

Every so often, when I appear to have a long wait ahead of me at either Full Tilt or Ultimate, I play some short-handed for a while. Given the paucity of ring games at higher (and, to a certain extent,lower) levels, I often say to myself that I ought to get the hang of this game. So, I potter away at $1-$2 for half an hour or so, do my bollocks, and retreat ungracefully to a full ring game where I slowly recoup my losses.


My initial theory for my failure at short-handed was that the game tends to attract serial non-believers (also known as calling stations). This strategy at ring game makes you a big loser, but it is less of a mistake short-handed. This could also explain the increasing popularity of the short-handed game - the bad players get a greater illusion of success.

Unfortunately, much of my profit at ring limit poker is derived from firing barrels on the flop and turn and eliciting a fold. At short-handed I find myself being called by King highs (and, of course, my queen high loses).

If you are going to get called by king highs, then that means you can afford to bet Ace highs. It's all a matter of adjusting your standards.

However, another thought occurred to me. Because the variance is higher, I had been playing lower stakes. Perhaps if I played short-handed at the same (or higher) stakes, I would have fewer problems, because I would be more "in tune" with my opponents' thoughts. In other words, perhaps I was coming across lunatic calling stations not just because I was playing short-handed, but also because I was playing at lower stakes. This might also be a factor in the $50 buy-in NL games. Perhaps I have to play in $200 buy-in games in order to be in tune with what is going on in their heads.

Something to ponder. I'm still not comfortable in the short-handed game - my technique of winning lots of uncontested pots just doesn't work in the games I am playing - players are more willing to reraise, more willing to call me down and more willing generally to fuck me about.

I read a fairly horrific tale about Party funds being hacked and diverted to Moneybookers, a site which proudly proclaims the irreversability of its transactions (i.e., you are fucked). So I came up with the ovious answer. I opened my own Moneybookers account. I don't intend to use it, but it does at least stop someone opening a fraudulent Moneybookers account in my name.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Most short-handed play tends to be 3 or 4 players most of the time - even on 6-handed tables. This means that you're in the blinds most of the time and it's vital to play these properly. Some rules of thumb that I'm still developing:

I will defend my big blind to a single raiser with almost any two cards. The only exception might be when a tight player raises UTG and I have something truly pitiful like 73o. Having called I am going to check-raise the flop with anything (a pair, a draw, occasionally nothing) and lead the turn. If re-raised on the flop then I will check the turn and assess. If folded to me on the button I am raising with any two cards. The only exception would be if the blinds are re-raising a lot and again I have something truly woeful. I don't defend my small blind to a raise nearly as much. Calling just prices in the big blind and I'll be out of position against two players not just one. Therefore I only play good hands in the small blind to a raise and I always re-raise. This hopefully drives out the big blind and gets some dead money into the pot. If I'm in position and have a respectable hand to call a bet on the turn then I like to throw in raises. You'll get called by worse hands a lot of the time and it inhibits people from betting into you. You also get a cheap showdown on river if you need one.

As you've already identified, you have much less fold equity short-handed and it becomes more about showdown value.

Matt

[(Anonymous)]

Not bad at all, exept that:

"If folded to me on the button I am raising with any two cards."

and

"As you've already identified, you have much less fold equity short-handed and it becomes more about showdown value."

feels like a contradiction.

[(Anonymous)]

I meant there's much less folding equity during the hand - there's still some folding equity pre-flop. Also other people tend to defend their blinds less than me and the positional advantage of the button throughout a hand is large.

If I was playing two clones of myself then raising on the button wouldnt work because the small blind would be re-raising good hands and if he folded then the big blind would always be calling. So I would *never* win the blinds. However in practise I find raising on the button frequently wins the blinds. Perhaps 1/3 of the time. This edge is huge. As long as theyre folding some of the time then I'm raising any two, once I establish they never fold, or re-raise then of course I will adjust.

Matt

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Your point about always reraising in the small blind if you choose to defend it is very good and is one that a number of players should think about in ring games as well, particularly against aggressive late raisers.

Showdown value is bad news for me. I never get any bloody cards... :-)

But, seriously, this matter of showdowns obviously shoots the variance up A LOT (I've spotted this on Saturday mornings). If you hit a run of good cards, you can win absolutely shedloads very quickly. This "gambling" nature of the game would also appeal to fish. But, once again, you have the drawback that a fish's "natural" style is a lot less wrong in a short-handed game than it is in a ring game.

PJ

[shortstackac05.livejournal.com]

Yea calling in the sb against a lone raiser is pretty atrocious. I got my start playing shorthanded limit poker, and most of it is just aggression + hand reading. Sometimes you gotta know when to bet your ace high, or fold your 2nd pair.

Mostly this game is obviously experience. You have a wealth of ring limit knowledge that just needs to be expanded upon. Think of it at first as, a table where the first 3-4 people already folded, and go from there.

AC

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Yes, I suspected that there was a large degree of "touch" involved. Theoretically, this should work to my advantage if I could get the experience in.

Yes, I adopt the "four people have folded" line. Unfortunately, the players behind me do not adopt the "hmm, a raise from quite a tight player, I'd better fold anything less than AQ" line. They adopt the "WOW! AN ACE!!! I'm in, man!!!!" line.