What game is the most fun?
Since this is an online poker forum I am going to talk about online poker play only. And since this is my opinion you may NOT disagree with me. LOL
1) Shorthanded limit... You get to play a lot of hands and stinky situations (like being outkicked) happen less often. You can raise a hand like AT. Moreover, when you get major hands you get them paid off like crazy. The people here are real calling stations but since there is only 1 or 2 of them they are less likely to catch you (vs. say a full table limit game with 6 people chasing). The people that play tend to play fairly long sessions so you can get a real good impression on how they play (which helps the observant player).
2) Full table no-limit... Online this is a great game - here is my strategy. Play a lot of hands (somewhere around 60-70%) and try to make BIG hands. You get paid off like crazy in this game so if you play your 64 and flop a straight you often will be able to get your entire stack in AND get paid off. The disadvantage of course, is that you see a lot of flops and have to fold like crazy when you keep missing them.
This isn't as good as #1 (IMHO) because you are basically on the draw all the time and don't get to progress past the flop much and when you do you are often on the draw there too). Since the players are so bad I often really overbet my major hands because they will call and you can often get it down to headsup.
3) Shorthanded no-limit... This game is worse than full-table no-limit and here is why: you can't get any read on your opponents. This means that you have to play fairly mechanically. Moreover, you can't overdo the limping and making a big hand or you will get blinded down too much. So this game takes some skill but it takes away a lot of the techniques you would use to use your skill. It is a pretty profitable game, however, as most players would call a major bet with as little as top pair mediocre kicker.
4) Full table limit... I hate this game and I almost NEVER play it. Simply put you have to play very tight and make hands. People chase you a lot so it is going to be quite volitile. Since you can play much fewer hands it isn't as profitable as the shorthanded version. AT in middle position or earlier now is a muck. If you are not getting the cards you are not playing the poker. :-P Having said this, if you wanted to open up 3-4 tables at once and play this it is probably the way to go as the action is quite slow.
---
Now the skills required to play these games.
Shorthanded vs. Full table: one thing a lot of players are bad at is paying attention to what other players in the game are doing. What happens is they get into a big hand and are forced to call a bet and the only thing they can remember about the other guy is that he made a big bluff and shorted it against him 2 hours before. Shorthanded needs you to pay attention to how the players are playing, the betting patterns they use and their mood in the game. It is often easy to see when a player goes on tilt (although it might be an act) but it is harder to tell when the player has tightened up.
Also, you need to pay attention to betting patterns coupled with the situations they happened in. For example, some players will raise a flushdraw with 4-5 people in but definitely not raise it when headsup (in fact often they shouldn't call but that is besides the point). Some people will raise a flushdraw everytime even if there are 5 people after them (that they might drive out).
I guess what I am saying is you have to pay attention much more in a shorthanded game. A lot of your plays are with more marginal hands so it is important to make the correct decision as often as possible in hands that are not cut&dry.
Limit vs. No-limit: Fact remains it is harder to play no-limit than it is to play limit. Limit is very mechanical (especially full table) where your decision is often completely dictated by your hand, the size of the pot, your position and the number of players contesting the pot. In no-limit you can blur a lot of those rules (except probably pot/implied odds). In no-limit it is often important to be able to properly play the flop/turn & river. In limit you can often start with a big hand AA and go to the river. If you do this in no-limit you will definitely lose your stack sooner or later.
If you have difficulty figuring out what people have (with any degree of certainty) you shouldn't play no-limit. If you are not familiar with which hands play well in which situations or with which hand is favoured over another hand you probably shouldn't play no-limit.
If you have difficulty controlling your emotions and go "on tilt" easily you should potentially stay away from no-limit. I say this because it kinda depends on how you burn. When I go on tilt I am generally a short burner -- that is I will be on tilt for a hand or two and then generally come out of it. What this means, in general, is that in no-limit those hands usually have me make a big raise and pickup a small pot a couple of times then I am done (not too much harm done unless someone picks up a hand).
However, in limit those 2-3 hands are going to cost me plenty if I raise to the river with them. Chances are I will not win and it will just make me more angry and more on tilt which could last a lot more hands. In this way no-limit can be much better for you ... it allows you to take a small pot with a big overbet and calm yourself down (as long as no one else picks up a hand).
Well that is some rambling I hope you got something outta it. Now I know I am a fast burner ... much better than the slow burn.
1) Shorthanded limit... You get to play a lot of hands and stinky situations (like being outkicked) happen less often. You can raise a hand like AT. Moreover, when you get major hands you get them paid off like crazy. The people here are real calling stations but since there is only 1 or 2 of them they are less likely to catch you (vs. say a full table limit game with 6 people chasing). The people that play tend to play fairly long sessions so you can get a real good impression on how they play (which helps the observant player).
2) Full table no-limit... Online this is a great game - here is my strategy. Play a lot of hands (somewhere around 60-70%) and try to make BIG hands. You get paid off like crazy in this game so if you play your 64 and flop a straight you often will be able to get your entire stack in AND get paid off. The disadvantage of course, is that you see a lot of flops and have to fold like crazy when you keep missing them.
This isn't as good as #1 (IMHO) because you are basically on the draw all the time and don't get to progress past the flop much and when you do you are often on the draw there too). Since the players are so bad I often really overbet my major hands because they will call and you can often get it down to headsup.3) Shorthanded no-limit... This game is worse than full-table no-limit and here is why: you can't get any read on your opponents. This means that you have to play fairly mechanically. Moreover, you can't overdo the limping and making a big hand or you will get blinded down too much. So this game takes some skill but it takes away a lot of the techniques you would use to use your skill. It is a pretty profitable game, however, as most players would call a major bet with as little as top pair mediocre kicker.
4) Full table limit... I hate this game and I almost NEVER play it. Simply put you have to play very tight and make hands. People chase you a lot so it is going to be quite volitile. Since you can play much fewer hands it isn't as profitable as the shorthanded version. AT in middle position or earlier now is a muck. If you are not getting the cards you are not playing the poker. :-P Having said this, if you wanted to open up 3-4 tables at once and play this it is probably the way to go as the action is quite slow.
---
Now the skills required to play these games.
Shorthanded vs. Full table: one thing a lot of players are bad at is paying attention to what other players in the game are doing. What happens is they get into a big hand and are forced to call a bet and the only thing they can remember about the other guy is that he made a big bluff and shorted it against him 2 hours before. Shorthanded needs you to pay attention to how the players are playing, the betting patterns they use and their mood in the game. It is often easy to see when a player goes on tilt (although it might be an act) but it is harder to tell when the player has tightened up.
Also, you need to pay attention to betting patterns coupled with the situations they happened in. For example, some players will raise a flushdraw with 4-5 people in but definitely not raise it when headsup (in fact often they shouldn't call but that is besides the point). Some people will raise a flushdraw everytime even if there are 5 people after them (that they might drive out).
I guess what I am saying is you have to pay attention much more in a shorthanded game. A lot of your plays are with more marginal hands so it is important to make the correct decision as often as possible in hands that are not cut&dry.
Limit vs. No-limit: Fact remains it is harder to play no-limit than it is to play limit. Limit is very mechanical (especially full table) where your decision is often completely dictated by your hand, the size of the pot, your position and the number of players contesting the pot. In no-limit you can blur a lot of those rules (except probably pot/implied odds). In no-limit it is often important to be able to properly play the flop/turn & river. In limit you can often start with a big hand AA and go to the river. If you do this in no-limit you will definitely lose your stack sooner or later.
If you have difficulty figuring out what people have (with any degree of certainty) you shouldn't play no-limit. If you are not familiar with which hands play well in which situations or with which hand is favoured over another hand you probably shouldn't play no-limit.
If you have difficulty controlling your emotions and go "on tilt" easily you should potentially stay away from no-limit. I say this because it kinda depends on how you burn. When I go on tilt I am generally a short burner -- that is I will be on tilt for a hand or two and then generally come out of it. What this means, in general, is that in no-limit those hands usually have me make a big raise and pickup a small pot a couple of times then I am done (not too much harm done unless someone picks up a hand).
However, in limit those 2-3 hands are going to cost me plenty if I raise to the river with them. Chances are I will not win and it will just make me more angry and more on tilt which could last a lot more hands. In this way no-limit can be much better for you ... it allows you to take a small pot with a big overbet and calm yourself down (as long as no one else picks up a hand).
Well that is some rambling I hope you got something outta it. Now I know I am a fast burner ... much better than the slow burn.
Comments
I'll have to disagree with that particular statement.
ScottyZ
Disagree, don't even know were to begin and I don't even want to. I would just like to say that no-limit and limit are completely different games and have completely different strategies. You can always spot a no-limit player at the limit tables and that goes the other way too (those who play it the same way). I really like it when no-limit players come to the limit table and start chirping about the play, with just a couple of comments you can send them into a frenzy!
stp
I'm not sure about this. What about the possibility that full table could be more profitable than shorthanded since you have to pay forced blinds less often?
It sure can. 8)
People chase you a lot so it is going to be quite profitable.
ScottyZ