Since many rookie players at casinos are graduates of home games, and may know how to beat home games, do to the bluffing element on a 4 or 5 handed game does this make this form of poker purer? To me the only reason casinos offer the 10 or 11 handed form of poker is for action and to maximize the rake and they have destored the original game(well at least with limit play). All replies would be welcome. By the way I read that Brunson considered short table players the best pure poker players.........
I think so on both counts (limit and 10 handed). granted, i havent played limit very often at all, but the few times I have it definitely feels like a "no fold 'em hold 'em game", where you regularly get 8-10 players in before the flop even when there have been a couple raises. it seemed to me like someone at the table ended up with a monster hand every single time, whereas in my short handed no-limit games there are a lot more judgment calls to be made on how strong your medium or even low pairs are.
the chess match feel of short-handed games is what I love most about poker, and it seems to me that this part of the game gets diluted at larger tables, and diluted to an extreme at low-limit large tables.
bottom line, the mindset I take into limit large tables is, "i just gotta play my cards." if i dont get any cards all night then too bad im out of luck, whereas in smaller tables its more about playing your opponent rather than relying on what is dealt.
I don't know if "purity" is the issue in short-handed v. full table cash games. If good players are playing full table games, you won't see more than 3-4 people in any hand.
It is a very different psychology though, because you still have to "play the man," but there are so many different characters to play against. You can also be a lot more selective in full table games, because blinds aren't chewing you up.
In fact, I could turn your argument on its head. It takes a much stronger and more forceful player to take a "table captain" role in a full game than it does short-handed. It's one thing to impose your will on 3-5 players--another to do it against 8-9.
But don't ask me the same question about Omaha 8/b, which is a great game shorthanded, but miserable full table, because someone either has the nuts on the turn and can't be outdrawn, or has the best hand on the turn and can only pray that it holds up with 4-5 people still drawing on him.
good point on the blinds not chewing you up on larger tables...i completely forgot about that. ill agree with you on this when it comes to larger limits, but because of my unfamiliarity with the nuances of limit poker I've only played low limit the few times that i've tried limit poker, and that is a totally different story in my experience. i was bored out of my mind...it felt like video poker.
and about imposing your will on a large table, i dont doubt that its a great deal harder than doing the same in a short-handed game, but unfortunately for me im nowhere near that level yet! i can pull off my share of moves in a smaller game, but it takes a master to pull off those moves on a full table.
I'm biased because I grew up in full table, mid-limits cash games. I know how hard it is to win consistently. But I agree it is a different set of skills that one has to bring to be successful.
I think the playing short handed games have just as much to do with position than actual skill. I believe the skill is the same, but marginal hands become stronger and the blinds are more valuable. So early position raises with K10 and middle and low pairs put more pressure on weaker marginal hands in late position. Its hard to call a raise in LP w/ J10 not know if the raiser has a PP or big connector.
As far as limit being boring, its really the fact that you are new to the game and have only been watching NL WPT and WSOP on TV. Limit is a fun game and can be fun. I believe that limit requires just as much skill as NL. I think the "newbies" need to really take a look at poker in general and not just NL games.
Just to throw something out there about the different skills for each game, i think in large games the valuable skill is being able to make your great hands pay really really big when you get them, and in smaller games the importance of getting a good read and stealing a few hands comes into play more often.
both skills are extremely important no matter what you are playing, but it seems to me that the value of each skill varies depending on the style of game.
You are right about my inexperience with limit games...ive only played low-limit the times that ive tried, so my opinion of limit games is skewed because of the craptastic fish-fest that low-limit brings. bruce said he plays mostly mid-limit, which im sure is a much better experience.
I'm not sure what you mean by "purer" here. If you pure water no fish, you're right and wrong. You will obviously get into more heads up situations in a short handed game, so if that's the kind of situation you prefer playing, shorthanded should be a good game for you.
Personally I prefer shorthanded to full table, as Patience is not my greatest virtue. But I still like to think that there ain't no form of poker that is better then others. It's all about getting the money - but it might differ quite a bit what it takes to get the money, depending on the number and type of opponents.
