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.
If you're like me, you are frustrated by the play on the multi-tables at Prima. This is the result of them allowing unlimited Re-buys for the first hour. People with money to burn go all in with anything and it makes this really hard. It's fine on a $1 multi but I've seen guys re-buy over 6 or 7 times on a $30 game.
This is what I'm doing now. I usually will re-buy right off the bat. Sacrifice 20 chips and get 1500 more. I then will play like a rock until the first hour is over. I do this cause I know the the worst possible scenario will be that I spend as little as possible on re-buying and I'm guaranteed to start the next round with 4500 chips after the add-on. I've won quite of few of these games and lost quite a few. The ones I lost were the ones where I gave in to the loose play.
Of course it all depends on the bankroll you have. To spend $100 on re-buys when the top prize is $2200 is not a bad thing and allows you to play a little looser and maybe pick up a big pot. Either way, i never worry during the first hour cause the real game begins the next round.
Rune Hansen's Article; Ludicrous
I really enjoyed the article up to stealing...to say that you ahve 1000 in chips with 75-150 blinds, and average at 2000, you should go all in with 5-6o or better is absurd...775 is enough to take the blinds down with, and chips can accumulate drastically...the worst thing to do is try to steal the blinds with some bone head hand and then go bust...it is often better to fade away then to burn out...I mean, if you have A-J or even K-ja nd no one is in the pot, well, probably an all in mvoe is proper, but a real piece of cheese? Also, A-Rag is the worst hand to do this with because people tend to call iwth bigger aces and if you ar ecalled you are often dominated...
I was wondering when this would generate some response, as I think some of the ideas I presented in this article are pretty radical (My real name is Rune Hansen, for those of you who don't know).
Nevertheless you might be right that my example here is too loose aggressive. And you don't often see me push it all-in preflop with 56, but I nevertheless think that the math of the example hold up. Sure, you've still got enough ammo to steal with 775 left, but people will be more suspiscious of a steal the shorter you get. And you still have to double through twice at some point. So by moving up a gear a little earlier then you have to often allows you to buy a lot of time for cheaps. Nevertheless I'm not enough of a tourney player to state with any confidence that you're not the one that's got this one right. I'd love to hear your argument in some more detail though.
Finally I'll say that most players tend to err to the passive side when they start to get short stacked, so I presume we both agree that the advice point in the right direction for most players. As the value of chips to you is relative to how many chips you already have, you have to be risk averse when you have an average or better stack and have to be risk willing when you're below average. This general mechanism sure holds true. The question left to be asked is when and how much risk you should take when you start to get shortstacked. I'd probably be a little tighter then playing 56 for all my chips, but I'd sure start to be quite willing to take risks with 1000 left.
I have been playing poker for about 8 months now. Seems like alot longer. I have clocked alot of hours, I'm guessing 600+ hours. Since starting I am up about $1200 overall in live and online. I am painfully streaky. For instance last week I deposited $50 after a 2 weeks layoff and turned that into $300 in about 5 hours of play at 2/4. I promptly cashed out $100. Within 2 weeks I redeposited the whole $100 plus 50.
Anyway, I have to think I show signs of potential with my winning streaks. Its not like I simply get lucky all the time and hit a big multitourney or something. I usually just hit streaks where I feel I play very well and this seems to always be followed by big losing streaks. I know I am changing my game but I'm not sure what I'm doing different.
I love poker but it makes me so mad sometimes that I can't stand it. I am a pretty mild mannered person, but I get intensely mad sometimes after bad beat after bad beat from what I think are lesser skilled players. (any two will do players who dont respect raises and hang on til river time and time again. I am a victim of this seemingly more than my fair share...I also take an amazing amount of legit bad beats like nut flush losing to boats and stuff like that)
I could write all day. But what I'm looking for is to determine just how I can solidify my game. I think I have a good feel for the game, but if someone asks me for advice, I really don't have much to give them. I really can't objectify what I'm doing right at times, but it works. I am very patient and sometimes I think that is my only positive poker quality. I am a tight aggressive player overall. I try to vary it up at times.
I know that skill wins this game and skill is more than just hoping for good cards. I try to read a table, get a table image, and make some moves occasionally. Nothing pisses me off more than giving a table image of a rock and then when I play a hand aggressively but don't hit I will get called against my strong raises with someone with pr of threes Q high with 4 overcards on board.
What I really want to know is what someone would recommend to really get better. Is it play time only? I am hesitant to immerse myself in books. I have read a few and I think they made my game worse. Unless someone has one specific one to recommend. Also I just saw commercial for Helmuth's videos. Anyone have any recommendations for or against them.
What does it take. Am I kidding myself to think I could be good when I only am making like $1/hour or so playing poker? If I took that time and put it into my business I'd probably be a millionaire.
It seems to me like you might be running into bankroll problems. Variance is a fact of life in poker, especially in the loose games you see online. Fifty dollars is way too low a bankroll for 2/4. Most recommendations I've seen are for a bankroll of 200x-300x the BB. For 2/4 this would mean you would need $800-$1200 to overcome fluctuations and not risk busting out. I'd recommend you either play a lower limit or deposit more money and don't cash out so much that you're bankroll puts you in jeopardy again. One rule of thumb I've heard and like is to cash out half your winnings. For example, if you double your bankroll from $100 to $200, cash out $50.
As for poker books making your game worse, the problem with most books is that they are for advanced players. Most of the strategies for higher-limit games assume that the other players are knowledgable and will respond to your moves in a somewhat predictable manner. If all the other players are brain-dead then making moves to project a certain table image will just end up costing you money. I like Lee Jones' "Winning Low-Limit Hold'em" for beating the basic games online. It's geared towards the "no fold'em" game you'll find at the lower limits.
