The logic behind Short-handed tables?

Paul3221

I was just wondering about the logic behind the short handed tables that seem very popular on some sites (5 or 6 players max). Now I know that there must be advantages, and some very good players on this site play on them (I think I even remember All Aces saying he enjoys these tables), but I don't understand the reasoning behind it. On one hand you'll get to play more hands/hr, but you're paying the blinds more often, and with less people, it seems to me that the pots would be smaller as well. What is the big draw?

Please enlighten me...

ScoobyD

I can only speak from my own experiences playing .50-1 full vs. .50-1 shorthanded on Stars. The biggest difference is the players themselves. They seem to be action junkies. I find the full games to be much more of a grind with tighter play in general. In the shorthanded games, players seem to be much looser and seem to bluff almost constantly. Top pair in these shorthanded games seems to be a monster. Add in the increased #hands/hr and you can achieve a pretty good hourly win rate (especially multi-tabling). Just my 2 cents...

pkrfce9

Huge variance. More action. Understanding your opponents = big profit.

ScottyZ

Not only do you get dealt more hands per/hour, but you get to play a much higher percentage of the hands you're dealt.

If your play is superior to your opponents, you have more decision points per 100 hands available (particularly post-flop) where you can make good decisions and your opponents bad ones. The fact that your blinds come around more often doesn't really hurt you assuming you know how to play your blinds well. In fact, you playing well on your own blinds while your opponents play their own blinds poorly would be one piece of your own long run profit pie.

The main downside of short-handed play from the (good) players' point of view: the rake. More hands played (and played deeper into the betting rounds) means more expected rake per player. However, the skill advantage of the best players is normally still enough to overcome the much higher than usual rake.

Another slight disadvantage for good players, is that the worst players generally get wasted very quickly in short-handed games, so you may find the fish "coming back for more" (in the long run) less often than you might at a full game. On the other hand, I've heard lots of reports of short-handed games being very soft on several major online sites, so it seems like there are plenty of fish in the sea for whatever reasons.

In the shorthanded games, players seem to be much looser and seem to bluff almost constantly.

This sort of thing is often (though I can't really tell if that's the connotation here) presented in a context that these are poor ways to play short-handed. Looser than usual starting/continuing standards and naked aggression are often characteristics of good short-handed players.

Obviously it's still possible to still be too loose or too aggressive relative to short-handed, but players who are used to playing in full games are frequently more than a little shocked when they first see loose/aggressive short-handed strategy, even if it's close to optimal.

ScottyZ

Paul3221

Thanks Scotty (and others), very insightful and informative as always. It seems that the strength of a persons post-flop play is the key factor to successful shorthanded games.

As far as seeing more hands per hour goes, I think I'll just stick with playing multiple tables, as opposed to playing short handed. It's been working well for me lately.

ScoobyD

Looser than usual starting/continuing standards and naked aggression are often characteristics of good short-handed players.

Absolutely. A rock will get killed in a shorthanded game, since his blinds are basically for sale. But on the flip side, there are times that you see the absolute hyper-aggressives raising their A high on every betting round (even though they've been caught bluffing 3 times in the last orbit). Calling these hyper-aggressives down with even modest hands tends to be +EV I think (probably much higher variance though).

I highly recommend to anyone at least trying a little shorthanded play (if not just for the $, for the learning experience). For myself anyways, I found it gives you work on stealing/defending your blinds, and the benefits of aggressive play (through your perceived table image). I found for awhile my thinking in the full games tended to be a little ABC: "Play x from position y with z number of opponents" Short handed play will at least (hopefully) get you to mix up your play based on your opponents playing style, your position, your perceived table image, etc...

Chugs

I played in a $10 shorthanded limit tourney last nite on UB. If you want an experience in playing against hyper agressive players and dealing with it, that's the place to test your skills.

There can me a method to the madness though for a maniac in a short handed game. You'll find many of them raising and building but doing so when they can get action 3 way preferablly. many will also bail out in the face of strength from the other remaining party's, but since no one believes them soon people are three betting them with middle pair ... the maniac caps and people start believing they're good.

funny thing is though if you can get a short handed table that is really agressive, a rock (or relative rock) can actually do well since they can almost always get paid off on their hands, which can diminish the fact that blinds are coming up quicker.

ScoobyD

funny thing is though if you can get a short handed table that is really agressive, a rock (or relative rock) can actually do well since they can almost always get paid off on their hands, which can diminish the fact that blinds are coming up quicker.

I think this is because one crazy at the table raising every hand can tend to put the entire table on tilt (if you can keep from tilting you're in good shape). People will start trying to isolate the maniac with hands like 2nd pair, top pair no kicker etc. So basically everyone has loosened up tremendously.

When I said:

Calling these hyper-aggressives down with even modest hands tends to be +EV

I should have clarified that you would only want to be doing this heads-up with the maniac (and preferrably in position). Calling with marginal hands with multiple players left to act can be disastrous.