short-handed
Aug. 23rd, 2006 09:06 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksEvery 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.
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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 05:44 pm (UTC)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
no subject
Date: 2006-08-23 06:26 pm (UTC)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.