BIGGYSLICKS short handed question

Dave Scharf

I broke this out into a new thread... Biggyslicks asked:

______________________________________________________

Just a quick question,

You mentioned your shorthanded 3-6 play. Can you expand on why you would choose shorthanded specifically?

It is my experience that shorthanded can be very profitable as few make the correct strategy adjustments. BUT my understanding of this is that in a rake game shorthanded is not so advantagous for obvious reasons. Also I would opt for a full game, especially at these low limits because less reading is involved and the game becomes more mathematical, which I would think is more condusive to NET play. This is just what I would do and I am curious is there some other factors that you consider when sleecting short handed play on the net ? Is the action that good to overcome these factors? Or, is there somthing I am missing?

Thanks, your insight is appreciated.

Biggy

Dave Scharf

You mentioned your shorthanded 3-6 play. Can you expand on why you would choose shorthanded specifically?

Because I get to play a lot more hands per hour. Patience isn't one of my strong suits. At this moment at pokerstars.com a full ring 3-6 goes for about 80 hands per hours and short handed game for about 130. I am getting almost twice as many hands per hour. That's more fun.

Also I would opt for a full game, especially at these low limits because less reading is involved and the game becomes more mathematical, which I would think is more condusive to NET play.

I play an almost rote system. So, in that regard it doesn't really differ from online full ring games. Also, there just aren't too many sharks in the low-limit poker -- online or off. At short-handed play (remember that I am playing between 2 and 4 games) I find it easier to key on one or two players per table. That is more to do with personal attention span than anything else.

My best guess is that the short-handed games are tougher than the full ring games, but they are still beatable. Factor in the additional hands per hour and the that fact that it is anything but boring (a hand every 8 seconds if you play 4 games) and I prefer it.

BIGGYSLICKS

You bring up some incredible points that I did not think of but they totally answer my question!

When you think of it 120 hands with and EV of .25 per hand is alot better than 60 hands at .40

Also

One key thing is choosing your battles with the correct players and short handed you can employ this principal to a far greater degree.

Thanks alot

Biggy