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

[jellymillion.livejournal.com]

Perhaps I have to play in $200 buy-in games in order to be in tune with what is going on in their heads.

Danger, Will Robinson! What if you happen on a $200 table that's full of donkeys? You'll do your bollocks at four times the rate, that's what. Eight bollocks worth in the same time - nasty.

I know what you mean though - you want to be playing against people whose thought processes are likely to be at, or perhaps just slightly below you own. But that's because it's easier to work out what they're thinking, because it's what you would think. I think that's a dangerous comfort zone to let yourself get into - you'd be better off working on understanding what the muppets are thinking (if they are in fact thinking at all) and exploiting them. For they are exploitable.

I think you (the broad "you", in the sense of "one") should be able to beat any game up to your current upper limit. You certainly should never be losing because you're "too good" for a particular game. Yoou are allowed to kill a game by taking all their money through too-godness, however.

Maybe run a $100 and $25 side by side, for contrast and gear selection purposes?

I recall an occasion (NocCon II? 1980?) when I lost a buyin at the "big game" upstairs (you, Tringham, Loveys RIP, Gamble plus?) and went downstairs and got it all back in the penny-game. I was too good for them - no great shakes, they'd call value raises all night long.

[(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]

Good point, Mike; Getting into a comfort zone of playing players who are thinking a bit like you, but one level lower, is not clever.

What I meant was that, because I had shifted down a level (because the variance was higher) I had been making the false assumption that the average standard of play in the short-handed was of a $2-$4 quality. Perhaps it isn't. If I also assume a $1-$2 mentality on their part, I should beat them. However, I have a better chance playing the $2-$4 and assuming a $2-$4 mentality.

Now, as for the NL point, well, I AM beating the lower level game, although perhaps not by the amount that I should be beating it. But "gearing down" to that level makes for a very unsatisfying experience and, even if I am winning at 1.5 x the rate, aesthetically it isn't that satisfying.

I would never say that "you can't beat these lower level games" (although a lot of players in Vegas will say just that). I've now learnt how to adapt my play to a lot of loose-passive players who don't have a single move in their book and who only look at their own cards, not at the action. But, every so often, a mult-wayer appears (remember the principle of needing a much better hand to make an overcall?) that just throws me completely, because the action of one of the players makes so little sense that I couldn't dumb down far enough.

You'll be pleased to know that this play actually cost me money in a $2-$4 donkey fest on Party yesterday. The pot was capped pre-flop and four players were in (already a v unusual situation for Party during the day). A tight player had putt in the final four-bet after being the initial raiser. I had three-bet with Jacks and two others (one in the big blind) called the three bets without hesitation. Flop came KJT 2 clubs, giving me middle set. Bet from small blind, raise from tight player on my right, three-bet from me, call from limper behind me, call from the blind, 4-bet from the tight player, call from me, call from limper, call from Big blind.

Turn brought the Ace of Clubs. Bet from Big blind, raise from tight player on my right. My action?

Well, it's v rare for me to fold a set, but I really think that I am drawing to one out here. Even if I'm not, I'm probably 7-to-2 against to win it, and perhaps not even that (if someone has AK). Reluctantly, very reluctantly, I folded (in retrospect, I should probably have come in for the Bad Beat Jackpot draw, which was laying me more than 2,000 to 1 even if I am four-bet on the turn).

River brought a rag and tight player bet again. Call, call, and he shows down AK for two pair, which wins.

I haven't looked to see what the other guys had, but I have to assume AJ and AT or something like that.

PJ

[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

[jellymillion.livejournal.com]

I really think that I am drawing to one out here

?

OK, some of them are probably held, given the action, but aren't you missing your board-pairing outs? Or were you assuming you were up against AA and/or KK, which I admit is possible, but not 100%, especially given the donktasticity of the table. If I count the betting, you're looking at calling two bets into about 18 (I deducted one for rake). I reckon you need about 5 or 6 outs to call this, although I suppose you have to factor in the squeeze play that'll give you even better value when it's reraised and capped (!) I wonder if there might even have been some extra fractions for a possible Q...

You put yourself at 7-2 against: 22% to win at that point. I dunno about that, but I reckon you were getting odds to stay.

All that said, I'd have folded the set like a shot in NL, because I have no way to close the action short of pushing, which seems a little bold with that board. And since I suck at limit I'd most likely have folded it there, too.

[peterbirks.livejournal.com]

Oh, the fold was definitely wrong. I was just convinced that I was up against AA as well as a straigh and/or a flush. I was unaware of the donktastic nature of the game until after the hand was concluded. I was three-tabling and failed to put sufficient thought into the hand.

As is the way of things, I got KK about five hands later, reraised a tight early position raiser, got reraised, and called down a rag board to the end, only for opponent to show what I was convinced he had, AA. Still, I don't think that I would ever fold that, no matter how spot on my reads were that day. But, at the time, it still pissed me off.

But I did win 30 big bets in an hour-long session, despite all the above, so I'm not complaining. When you are three-tabling, you will make the occasional mistake. That's the way of it.

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.