I'm not sure that I said that I found it "easier". Indeed, because of my natural style, I kind of find it more difficult. What I was saying, I think, was that one of the things at which I think I am good is assessing opponent's range and acting accordingly. Now, in some games (PLO is often an example), opponent's range is very narrow and this is obvious to even the village idiot. In 6-max it's rather more the opposite -- opponent's range is very wide. As opponent's range widens (to the hypothetical extreme of any two cards) then you rely more and more on the strength of your own cards. "Playing your own hand" is counter-intuitive for me. Most of what I do in full ring is play against the range of my opponent's hand (see today's post for an example of this). However, if opponents are serial disbelievers, and you are going to showdown more often, it becomes much more important to play your own hand.
I call this "ABC" poker and, yes, in a way, I do find it trivial. Clearly if I can play ABC well, and three of my five opponents are not as good at ABC, then I will win money, and probably more money, than at an equivalent level in Full Ring. Provided I am not disturbed by the necessarily increased volatility, it would make more sense to play at that level.
But playing it would be a bit like that famous quote about Brian Townsend in a ghastly "poker den" live game on TV where all that he needed to do to win would be to stay awake. Sure, he probably had a bigger EV, but it would be, as it were, "a waste of talent" and, for that reason, somewhat mind-numbing.
The reduced hand-reading requirements in PLO and, in particular, Hi-Lo PLO (or hi-lo games in general), are probably one reason why I have gone off those games.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: 6-max
Date: 2010-03-04 11:46 am (UTC)I'm not sure that I said that I found it "easier". Indeed, because of my natural style, I kind of find it more difficult. What I was saying, I think, was that one of the things at which I think I am good is assessing opponent's range and acting accordingly. Now, in some games (PLO is often an example), opponent's range is very narrow and this is obvious to even the village idiot. In 6-max it's rather more the opposite -- opponent's range is very wide. As opponent's range widens (to the hypothetical extreme of any two cards) then you rely more and more on the strength of your own cards. "Playing your own hand" is counter-intuitive for me. Most of what I do in full ring is play against the range of my opponent's hand (see today's post for an example of this). However, if opponents are serial disbelievers, and you are going to showdown more often, it becomes much more important to play your own hand.
I call this "ABC" poker and, yes, in a way, I do find it trivial. Clearly if I can play ABC well, and three of my five opponents are not as good at ABC, then I will win money, and probably more money, than at an equivalent level in Full Ring. Provided I am not disturbed by the necessarily increased volatility, it would make more sense to play at that level.
But playing it would be a bit like that famous quote about Brian Townsend in a ghastly "poker den" live game on TV where all that he needed to do to win would be to stay awake. Sure, he probably had a bigger EV, but it would be, as it were, "a waste of talent" and, for that reason, somewhat mind-numbing.
The reduced hand-reading requirements in PLO and, in particular, Hi-Lo PLO (or hi-lo games in general), are probably one reason why I have gone off those games.
_________