Short handed strategies
droa...@aol.com
S&M wrote in HPFAP:
"... we could probably write another book on short handed play."
So, did they? Has anyone? I'm thinking in particular of high limit games
such as 80-160 at CSP.
I want answers to questions like:
In a 3 handed game with over-aggressive opponents, should I be calling
down often with middling pair?
Should I lay down flush draws against one opponent, who I just (almost)
KNOW will 3 bet me if I try to semi-bluff raise?
How to handle big overcards that don't hit the flop. Been eating a lot of
"Raise 'n muck".
Is it ever correct to slow play with top pair, best kicker?
Enlightening commentary welcome...
Dr. O
Tom Weideman
Well, you may have to settle for just plain commentary... Enlightening? Not
likely. :-)
I would love nothing more than to have all of these questions answered
myself. I just don't think that they are answerable. IMHO, in shorthanded
games, the single most important consideration is how you and your opponents
mix up your play. The softest shorthanded games are those where the
competition is predictable, and the toughest are those where they are
constantly shifting gears.
Note that the usual characterizations of "loose", "tight", "aggressive", and
"passive" have far less meaning (if any at all) in short handed games. In
other words, you can know that a player is tight and aggressive in a full
game and it will do you little good. But if you know he will continue to
play this same way when the game gets short, you have a big edge over him.
He will likely dump too many hands (play too tight), and you can slowplay
much weaker hands than usual to suck extra bets from his aggressive play,
since you don't have to worry about several other players catching up to you.
The upshot is that although it is *never* possible to give a secret formula
for how to play poker correctly (e.g. "Always call down a maniac head up when
you have second pair."), it is even more difficult in short-handed play,
especially against tough opponents.
If I wrote a book about short-handed play, it would be a brief one. (It is
unlikely that anyone would buy it anyway, so why work too hard? ;-) It would
contain three pieces of advice beyond the usual stuff ("usual stuff" = play
big cards, play looser and more aggressively, don't draw passively, etc.):
1. Change up your play early and often. Try to keep track of what you think
that they think you are doing, and cross them up.
2. Continue playing only if you feel comfortable with your read of the other
players. If you feel like you are always guessing wrong and they seem to
have your number, get out -- the game's too tough for you. Keep in mind that
players who are poor in a full game sometimes become tigers short-handed, and
some tough full-game players get soft when the game goes short.
3. Be prepared mentally for some dramatic (much more than usual) up and down
swings in your stack. Though I haven't taken any statistics on it, I suspect
that the hourly variance probably increases from its full game counterpart by
a factor of at least 4 or 5, and probably much more.
#2 is especially important. Short-handed is extremely profitable when you
are "in the zone", and extremely costly when you are out of sync. Be sure
you're getting the best of it. If you find you are constantly riddled with
doubts like those questions above, it seems likely that you are more likely
to be out of sync. If that is the case, avoid short-handed games like the
plague.
Good question, BTW. I hope others will post their comments as well.
Tom Weideman
James Morgan
Tom Weideman (zugz...@dcn.davis.ca.us) wrote:
Good answer too. I think that short-handed play will be SO dependet
on your opponents that you simply won't be able to fully prepare
through book study. I think that Tom is right on when he says to simply
get out if you feel uncomfortable and are guessing wrong a lot. Of
course, if you are propping the game, you will simply be forced to adapt.
I think irc is actually a great place for short-handed practice. The
wild and varied styles seen there will be much more likely to be playable
in games with 5 and fewer players.
I am certain that it taught me much about short-handed O-8 play.
The 4 biggest lessons were....
1) Pairs (even fairly high ones like Jacks) are big defects in short
O-8 games. Unless you catch a set, you are really only playing
with 3 cards. When the pair gets higher, you will occaisionally
win with it, but you will often find yourself paying off with it
when it loses.
2) Medium cards are still bad. They can be only slight dogs in many
head-up situations, but they will be hard to play. Even so, you will
sometimes be forced to play them from the blinds
3) Aces are powerful. Since 2 pair will win high fairly often, a hand
with an ace will often win when your good low is counterfeited by
catching an ace
4) 2 way hands are still the boss. What is really surprising is that
2-way hands can be pretty crappy both ways and still be worth playing.
Often the key will be to dump such a hand if there are 2 other players.
Sometimes you will even raise with such a hand to isolate the better.
This will hopefully isolate you against a 1-way hand which will give
you a split pot and often give you a small free-roll (by small, I
mean you have only a small number of scoop outs.) You will play 1 way
hands, but they will need to be pretty strong.
The practice I had on irc led directly to a small O-8 tournament win
(3-way tie) for me once. When it got to 6-handed, I moved from a small
but not tiny stack to a 3-way tie for the lead. All of this was because
I knew how to adapt to short-handed play and my opponents did not. I
would not have know how had I not played short-handed on irc.
Jim Morgan
: Tom Weideman
Abdul Jalib
In another article, I said I would repost this old article, so without
further ado, here it is...
From mh...@netcom.com Sat Oct 28 11:32:46 PDT 1995
Article: 3570 of rec.gambling.poker
Xref: netcom.com rec.gambling.poker:3570
Newsgroups: rec.gambling.poker
Path: netcom.com!mhall
From: mh...@netcom.com (Abdul Jalib M'hall)
Subject: Re: Short table strategy??
Message-ID: <mhallDH...@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <DGLGp...@freenet.carleton.ca>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 1995 21:02:25 GMT
Lines: 229
Sender: mh...@netcom15.netcom.com
In article <DGLGp...@freenet.carleton.ca>,
Sandy MacTavish <ac...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>Since there are occasions where the table gets down to 7 or less
>and I'm one of the idiot's who hasn't gone home, can anyone
>shed some light on the changes in strategy?
>
>At a glance, it looks like you can see more flops with lower
>high cards, and drawing cards are better than usual if they hit.
>
>The usual table around here (Ottawa) I'd classify as loose-passive.
I don't really consider 7 players to be short handed. (Then again,
I'm from 9-handed California games where 2 people are always off
lobbying.) The character of the game dramatically changes at 4 or
fewer players, where everyone is either in late position or on a
blind.
PLAYING THE PLAYERS
===================
Short-handed tables tend to be heads up by the flop, and heads up play
is a tremendously psychological game. Categorize your opponents and
exploit their weaknesses, radically adjusting your play for the opponent.
Against overaggressive players you should be passive-aggressive;
be tenacious and let the overaggressive player bluff into you,
shedding your passivity for aggressive counterattacks for value
late in the hand. Against weak-tight players likely to fold, you should
be overaggressive, but just be sure that they are really weak-tight, not
passive-aggressive. Against passive-tenacious-loose players (i.e.,
calling stations), bet for value and almost never bluff.
Do what you can to encourage them to continue to be predictable in
one extreme or the other; for example, against chronic bluffers,
don't embarrass them by forcing them to show their hand at the showdown.
Against weak-tight players, cow them into submission with your glorious
superiority (as long as you and they believe you are the superior player,
you will be!)
Those tight-aggressive players, well, they are a problem, especially
if they have loosened up appropriately for the short-handed game; you
have no choice but to be tight-aggressive against them, and much of
the below strategy emphasizes this approach.
PREFLOP
=======
Yes, you should see more flops when short-handed. Don't get carried
away with this, however, as you'll need good hands to support the
semi-bluffing that you'll be doing later in the hand. Short-handed
preflop play is nearly identical to late position play and play on
the blinds at full tables when everyone folds to the last four players.
(The only difference in theory is that there were not a bunch of people
folding before, so in short-handed play the card distributions are
uniform, whereas at a full table that has folded down to a few players
the last few hands are more likely to contain aces and other high cards.)
Review the late and blind position sections in Sklansky&Malmuth's
_Advanced Holdem_ book, and see also their comments on heads up play
and semi-bluffing and just about everything else. See also the FAQ.
Attack the blinds by raising with any playable hand. A naked ace,
which is a trouble hand at a full table, becomes a playable raising
hand when short-handed. Kings with decent kickers are okay too.
I tend to dump hands such as 86s, however, as I really don't
want to get heads up with it, though if the blinds are likely to
fold I might go for it. When short-handed, big unsuiteds are fine,
while small suited connectors are trouble. When your blind is being
attacked, call with most playable hands and reraise with the better hands
(such as AQ, KQs, ATs, 88) to punish your opponent for raising
your blind with his 86s.
ON THE FLOP
===========
Heads up, an ace with a good kicker is often a value-betting/raising hand
on a flop that completely misses it (i.e., no pair), even if the kicker
is not an overcard, though proceed with caution if you get called (you
have to hope your opponent is on a draw and that your ace high will
hold up in the showdown or that you'll hit your ace or its big kicker
on the turn or river.) When I say proceed with caution I don't really
mean to check... although sometimes you can, much of the time you
should be betting, betting, betting until your opponent shows you
the error of your ways by raising you, and then you should often fold,
not call.
Giving free cards is not so dangerous heads up as at a full table,
but showing weakness heads up can be a fatal mistake, so in addition
to betting real hands that you could later get pushed off if a scare
card hits, you should also usually bet your draws.
If your opponent is showing strength by betting or raising you but you
have an awesome hand that you are sure beats him or a weak but
nonvulnerable hand such as ace bad kicker with an ace on the flop,
then it's usually best to "rope-a-dope", that is, back off and just
check and call, letting him defeat himself with his own strength.
You can even do this with weaker hands such as middle pocket pairs,
especially against overaggressive opponents. Although sometimes
when out of position you will give the dreaded free turn card in
this manner, this is really pretty rare, because your opponent
does not wish to show his weakness by checking.
Because betting is so important, you can nearly count on your opponent
to bet if you check, and so you can and often should check-raise on
the flop with as little as top pair or a good draw or less.
Because you are often check-raising, it's okay to check your really
crappy hands... you won't be giving your opponent a total license to
steal. Generally bet your middle pairs heads up as if they were top pairs
at a full table (especially with an overcard kicker, double so an ace
kicker), generally check-raise the better hands such as a good top pair,
and check-fold the hopeless hands.
ON THE TURN
===========
If on the flop you bet and your opponent called, don't make the
mistake of showing weakness by checking the turn, especially if
you are going to fold if your opponent bets. It bears repeating:
keep hammering until you are raised. Don't let a scare card slow
you down. Remember, since you have just one or two opponents,
it's much less likely that they are helped by a scare card than
at a full table, and they are probably just as scared of the card
as you are. Look out for bluff raises when a low card on the board
pairs on the turn.
If the flop got checked through, then you should often bet on
the turn even if you don't have much. When out of position,
it may appear to your opponent as if you attempted to check-raise
the flop but failed and so now you are betting the turn with a real
hand. When in position, and your opponent checks again on the turn
despite your checking after him on the flop, well, it sure looks
like he is just begging you to take the pot. However, if you have
a really bad hand with no hope of winning in a showdown, you might
want to save your cold bluff for the river, since you don't want
to run a cold bluff on both the turn and the river, and you don't
want to bluff on the turn and then concede on the river when you
have no chance of winning the showdown yet aren't sure your opponent
has a hand.
When out of position and rope-a-doping a powerful hand by checking
on the turn, you should almost always (check)raise if your opponent
bets, because you are probably going to want to bet the river
anyway, and so you might as well spring the trap now for that extra
bet. Also, if you opponent is on a draw, he will pay that extra
bet on the turn but not on the river (unless he makes his draw.)
When out of position with a drawing hand and the turn
gets checked through, then you should often bet into your opponent
on the river regardless of whether or not you made your draw.
And with position on the river, you should often bet if your
opponent checks. Again, see S&M.
If you check-raise on the flop, then bet on the turn and prepare to
reevaluate/dump if your opponent raises you on the turn. However,
your opponent with position on the turn may make a powerful play by
raising you when he intends on calling on the river anyway, especially
if he has an okay hand with some draws, even if he strongly suspects
it is second best now. One can even do this raise on the turn with just
a good draw or even as a pure bluff, though this would be risky if
the other player showed strength by check-raised on the flop.
Because when your opponent raises on the turn with position it may just
be a semi-bluff, don't always dump your no-where-near-the-nuts
hand... sometimes reraise! This reraise can be done for value with
a hand as weak as top pair or it can even be done as a pure bluff
against the right opponent at the right time. If you reraise on
the turn and your opponent calls, then be careful on the river, as
evidently he was not bluffing and either had a good hand or a good
draw or a mediocre hand *and* mediocre draw.
ON THE RIVER
============
If you reraised your opponent on the turn, you have a good but beatable
hand, and the river card is a flush or straight or pair scare card, then
it's perfectly reasonable to check into your opponent with the intention
of calling; you may induce a bluff from the poorer players here (your
opponent would have to be dumb to bluff on the river when you reraised
his ass on the turn, but you might as well give him the chance to
make this mistake), and you may save yourself a bet if your opponent
hit his draw. On the other hand, heads up often that flush or
straight scare card will be just as scary to your opponent as to you,
so sometimes you can bluff or value bet without worrying about getting
hit with a raise unless you are beat. If you have a no-where-near-the-nuts
hand that you want to showdown, then you can check, but if you opponent
is likely to fold some hands better than yours (and that's very plausible
given given your reraise on the turn) then you should often bet.
More generally, if on the river you have a hand that you would
agonize over calling if you check and your opponent bets, then
usually you should bet, especially since you can easily fold it
if you are raised.
And that points to the fact that you can occasionally succeed in
bluff-raising on the river with position. Don't try this too often
though, but also remember that it has to work only a fraction of the
time to be worthwhile. A bluff check-raise on the river can work too,
but it's so tricky to pull off that it's almost not worth mentioning.
SUMMARY
=======
Well that's off the top of my head. Again, I refer you to S&M for
much more information than can be squeezed into a short article.
Short-handed hold'em is a glorious game, where the skill factor
really goes through the roof and your play should become much more
probabilisticly mixed up and aggressive, including much more bluffing
and semi-bluffing than at a full table. If you are a good full table
player, you can help adjust your play to a short table by usually
betting instead of checking and usually folding or raising instead of
calling. That's good advice for full tables too, but it goes double
for short-handed tables.
When I post stuff like this sometimes readers think I'm being
condescending or arrogant. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If I post more than a terse response, then it's because I'm not sure
of everything I'm saying, and I'm interested in learning more about
the subject. I'm actually seeking feedback from you rec.gamblers,
not lecturing you guys, so take it as a compliment and please go ahead
and criticize what I said.
--
Abdul |``You might spare yourself some grief by not TRYING to reconcile Mr.
Jalib | Grant's beliefs and accusations with any rational scheme. Just say,
M'hall | "Nice doggie..." as you back out of the room.'' - John Clarkson
Abdul Jalib
In article <19961202080...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
droa...@aol.com writes:
> S&M wrote in HPFAP:
> "... we could probably write another book on short handed play."
>
> So, did they? Has anyone?
I think the closest thing in existence to this is my article on
short-handed play in _Poker World_, February 1996 (Johnny Moss on
the cover.) It's the single biggest essay on short-handed play.
I posted a short-handed article that formed the basis of the
_Poker World_ article.
* Abdul russles papers in the background.
Ah, I found the old netnews article, and I'll repost it in another
follow-up.
Too bad there is no book on short-handed play by S&M or anybody.
>I'm thinking in particular of high limit games such as 80-160 at CSP.
80-160 at CSP? You mean I made a mistake when I passed up living in
Sausalito after CSP bungled the opening days and could thereafter
spread only 20-40? Drat!
> I want answers to questions like:
> In a 3 handed game with over-aggressive opponents, should I be calling
> down often with middling pair?
No, you should be raising with that strong a hand, 1/2 ;)
When heads up, you can almost pretend like the top card on the flop
is not there. Middle pair with an ace kicker thus rocks (especially
since the ace is over the over card), and middle pair with shitty kicker
is often worth either a call or an informational raise (and maybe fold
or free card afterwards, depending on the opponent's reaction). On the
river, in a pot that has been heads up the whole way, it's not far from
correct to say that you should often call with as little as pocket deuces.
> Should I lay down flush draws against one opponent, who I just (almost)
> KNOW will 3 bet me if I try to semi-bluff raise?
This is a paradoxical aspect of short-handed play. The lean pot odds seem
to indicate that you should lay down flush draws. However, the naive pot
odds neglect the fact that you can very often win the hand without making
your flush. Maybe your opponent will play back at you if you raise on the
flop, but what if you bluff raise or bluff check raise or bluff bet
into him on the river? How about waiting until the turn for your
semi-bluff raise? All in all, I think the flush draws are usually worth
playing, doubly so with an ace (which might be sufficient to win on
the river.)
> How to handle big overcards that don't hit the flop. Been eating a lot of
> "Raise 'n muck".
Depends, but basically you should often muck big overcards that miss. Do
unto your opponent with a raise or check raise before he does unto you.
If you raised before the flop and your opponent called on
the blind, then a bet might take down the pot on the flop. If the flop
does not contain an ace, king, or queen, your opponent may doubt your
sincerity and may raise your ass with as little as a bad gutshot draw.
It is then tough for you to call, though you can make a crying call
(or a "fuck you, I don't believe you either" reraise) with an ace or
draw.
If your opponent raised before the flop and you are in with a hand
like QJ or KJ (presumably on the big blind), you are in big trouble
if the flop misses you (and maybe even if it hits you.) Bail now,
or get beaten by A2 on the river.
If you don't have a draw, a made hand, or an ace, you don't have much of
a right to stay in after the flop; if you raised before the flop, you
might take a swing, but otherwise check and fold. Two overcards is a
very weak hand without an ace.
Mathematically, the situation is that the pot is very small relative
to the bet, and so players should bluff more and call down suspected
bluffs less - thus the "do unto your opponent before he does unto you"
principle.
If you have got a good read on someone, you of course don't necessarily
need a hand or a draw to push them off their hand, and so in some
instances your two overcards are just as good as the nuts. But it's
dangerous. I think to defend yourself you need to occasionally be
aggressive with some mere gutshot draws (but make them gutshots to the
nuts), but being aggressive with absolutely nothing is usually not a
good idea.
> Is it ever correct to slow play with top pair, best kicker?
If your opponent has taken the betting initiative in this pot, you can
often back off and rope-a-dope check and call, letting him defeat himself
with his own strength. An excellent hand to do this with is ace-baby with
an ace on the flop. If you just check and call the whole way, you may
induce a player without an ace to give you a lot of free money, and if
you are up against a better ace you lose the minimum. Top pair best
kicker is a similar situation, but different in that you have to be very
concerned about overcards, unless of course there are no overcards that
can hurt you.
In general, you should often bet instead of checking and calling/folding
and should often raise or fold instead of calling. This is true in
normal games, but even more so in short-handed games. Bet, and keep
betting until your opponent attempts to show you the error of your
ways with a raise, and then either raise or fold, don't call too often.
You should almost behave as if neither checking nor calling is
in your poker vocabulary, except for certain situations like this
rope-a-dope check-and-calling. But be careful if your opponent seems
to be rope-a-doping you when you don't have a hand.
It would be much easier if you would give specific examples as your
questions. My _Poker World_ article doesn't read very well, I think,
because I try to cover almost every situation, and so the article is a
dense morass of if-then-else's.
--
Abdul Jalib | When you read my _Poker World_ article, you have to
| mentally add back in all the "raise your ass"'s that
abd...@earthlink.net | they edited out.
Ramsey
In article <19961202080...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
droa...@aol.com writes
>S&M wrote in HPFAP:
>"... we could probably write another book on short handed play."
>
>such as 80-160 at CSP.
>
>In a 3 handed game with over-aggressive opponents, should I be calling
>down often with middling pair?
>
>KNOW will 3 bet me if I try to semi-bluff raise?
>
>"Raise 'n muck".
>
>
>
I put the following thoughts together some time ago. They apply
specifically to Head to head but should be germane to short handed:
If you are going to takes your normal ring game strategy and apply it to
Head-to-Head (h2h) play then you will probably be most successful if you
are naturally aggressive. One of the biggest difficulties in adapting
to h2h is in re-evaluating hand strength.
For example you hold J7. In a ring game you would fold without thought.
But h2h this represents an average hand. In other words if you are in
the sb then there is a 50% chance that your opponent has a worse hand
(J6 or T9 or worse). Players who are new to h2h are very likely to fold
hands such as Q3 or even K5 not realising that they are actually quite
strong.
A second error that ring players make is to underestimate the value of
the blinds. In a ring game you will not be too worried about winning
say $3 in blinds when the average pot size is $60. However h2h the
average pot size is likely to be $20 or less. The blinds are therefore
far more important. A player who does not defend his blinds will
quickly lose a lot of chips.
An aggressive player will automatically take advantage of both these
common mistakes. However the aggressive player will lose rapidly against
an experienced h2h player even if the h2h player is the weaker player in
a standard ring game.
The reason for this is that when you are h2h it is easy to counter an
aggressive player. You simply muck your poor hands early; reduce your
calling requirements the appropriate amount and avoid getting into a
raising war unless you expect to have the best of it.
Similarly if your opponent is loose & passive then as an experienced h2h
player you will reduce the use of semi-bluffs but bet far more for value
and give extra respect to raises.
In other words any playing style used in a ring game can be easily
countered h2h. Successful h2h players don't have a fixed style but
instead adopt whatever is required to counter the style of their
opponent. Hence my lead-in - 'Play Your Opponent'
Because it is h2h your opponent will sooner or later (hopefully later)
realise that he is losing chips steadily and he will decide he is being
too tight, or aggressive, or loose, or passive or whatever - and he will
modify some of his betting patterns. At this point you have gained an
important psychological edge and you are part way to your real goal -
total psychological dominance.
**** Forcing your opponent to play differently from the way he is used
to, and is comfortable with, is the first stage to dominating your
opponent ****
The next stage is to make sure your opponent doesn't get off the hook.
You have to be on the watch for changes in strategy, identify them
quickly and modify your play to suit.
As a simple example suppose your opponent has been playing very
passively and has only raised from the sb with, as far as you can
ascertain, premium hands. Now he raises from the sb twice in
succession. It is possible that he has hit AA both times but it is best
to assume that he is playing more aggressively. Reduce slightly your
calling requirements. If he doesn't raise again for a while then it is
probably a false alarm - go back to plan A. But if the raises continue
to come more often than you would expect continue to lower your calling
requirements. This prevents him from picking up the blinds as he was
hoping to do.
In effect this rapid changing of strategy is a bit like the well known
game. If he picks stone you pick paper; if he picks paper you pick
scissors; if he picks scissors you pick stone and on and on constantly
keeping your opponent on the defensive.
**** Preventing your opponent from having more than momentary success
when he changes an element of his strategy is the second stage to
dominating your opponent ***
Another error that the normal ring player will make when h2h is to not
realise the increased importance of the post-flop play. In a ring game
it is very unusual for a particular post-flop situation to be repeated
even approximately. However h2h there are relatively few betting
sequences and the exact same situations will repeat over and over again.
This allows the observant h2h player to quickly pick up accurate
knowledge about his opponent and to spot weaknesses.
For example what does a loose player do when he hits the flop big? Does
he raise/check raise on the flop or does he wait until the turn? Either
way you can use the information to your advantage. Similarly, what does
the aggressive player do when he misses the flop completely. How does he
react if you call on the flop and raise the turn? If he won't lay down
a hand you are happy, if you can find betting sequences where he will
consistently lay down his hand you are also happy; you have found a
weakness you can exploit.
You therefore need to be very observant after the flop to be able to
analyse his normal play. You also need to use your betting (when you
have options) to probe your opponent. For example your average opponent
bets from the bb on the flop, you call. What does he do if you bet at
him on the turn? Find a suitable situation (ie not a complete bluff)
and try it!
Every weakness you find you should aim to exploit. However judicious
exploitation of his weaknesses can be more profitable long term. If
your opponent does not know why he is losing then he may well modify
part of his game which is working well and play even worse as a
result. Again you must watch carefully so that you identify these
changes as soon as they occur.
**** Preventing your opponent from being able to identify why he is
losing steadily is the third step to total dominance ****
Even if your opponent modifies a weakness in his game, rather than a
strength, the constant need to make changes will undermine his
confidence. In addition, after sufficient changes his whole game is
likely to fall apart. This is a bit like a piece of software.
Initially the software is ok but has some bugs in it. When you fix a
bug it improves that area of the software but it might well introduce
unexpected problems elsewhere. As you make more and more changes
so the cohesiveness of the whole goes down until you would be better off
rewriting the whole thing. Of course with software you could take a
long time testing the bug fixes first but your opponent can't do that
h2h.
Which brings up another major difference to ring games. When h2h you are
totally involved in the game all the time - there are no breaks when you
can fold your hand and watch your opponents play. The game is far more
intensive and mentally demanding. You should use this to keep the
pressure on your opponent. If you are losing then slow the pace of the
game down, think about each action and be prepared to discuss hands when
they are over (even ask for deck changes & set-ups - this is one time
when it does have a benefit). If you are winning then put the pressure
on by playing fast and not lingering between hands. A lot of opponents
will just follow your lead. Especially as a loser tends to want to get
on with the game quickly so that he can recoup his losses. If he is
playing fast then he has less time to work out why he is losing.
**** Keeping the game at a fast tempo when you are winning is the final
step to total dominance****
By this stage your opponent should be shell-shocked. He has lost
steadily from the start, he has made a lot of adjustments to his game
and nothing has seemed to work, his confidence has gone and he is not
getting a seconds respite. The steady trickle of chips your way should
by now be an avalanche :)
You might expect that a player who starts losing a lot would quit
quickly. My experience of h2h games (admittedly without a dealer) is
that this is not so. Of course if you put several bad beats on him he
may go on tilt and quit. But in the main you are winning by outplaying
him and for some reason, probably due to the intensity and speed of the
game, it is much harder to get out in this situation when you are
losing. Normally the game will continue until either the winner insists
on quitting or the loser runs out of money.
Obviously when you are ahead you should do all that you can to keep the
game going providing that you are dominating him. If things start to go
right for him and he begins to recover confidence then find some
pressing reason to quit (falling asleep at the table might work).
If you play h2h for a while and you are not making progress then as said
before slow the game down and think things through but be prepared to
get out quick and with a small loss. Don't get caught up in the game.
And finally there is no reason to go on tilt h2h. Think of each hand as
just one move in a long game. Even if your opponent puts several
horrendous bad beats on you in quick succession the chips lost and more
importantly the chips not won are relatively few (compared to a ring
game) and can quickly be recouped. The time to worry is when you are
losing chips steadily without being outdrawn.
--
Ramsey
sjri...@sjrindex.demon.co.uk
Robert Copps
In article <$4$LaJAuo...@sjrindex.demon.co.uk>,
sjri...@sjrindex.demon.co.uk (Ramsey) writes:
>
>
> I put the following thoughts together some time ago. They apply
> specifically to Head to head but should be germane to short handed:
>
Another terrific, and very generous, essay from Ramsey. I wonder if some of
the RGP skeptics can appreciate the $ value of this article.
>
> You might expect that a player who starts losing a lot would quit
> quickly. My experience of h2h games (admittedly without a dealer) is
> that this is not so. Of course if you put several bad beats on him he
> may go on tilt and quit. But in the main you are winning by outplaying
> him and for some reason, probably due to the intensity and speed of the
> game, it is much harder to get out in this situation when you are
> losing. Normally the game will continue until either the winner insists
> on quitting or the loser runs out of money.
>
After some players discover that with good table selection they have a
slight positive expectation with tight passive play they then find out that
without a full fairly loose table they lose their slight edge. They run
like little deer when the table gets down to 6-handed.
Those who don't make this connection between weak-tight EV and a full
passive table might well think they play better than some tight aggressive
players (who, it seems to them, just get lucky an inordinately high
proportion of the time for someone who is always taking such big risks).
When they get head to head they think that in time their "less risky" play
is bound to take the money. They will lose a great deal trying to prove to
themselves that they are better than the aggressive players who are running
over them.
The edge Ramsey's strategy has is phenomenol. H2H with a tight, even
occasionally aggressive, ring game player who does not understand how to
adapt, the better player will average close to 1 SB per Hand! I can't
imagine where else an educated (read RGP reading) player can find such an
edge.
--
--Bob.
droa...@aol.com
In article abd...@earthlink.net (Abdul Jalib) writes:
>>80-160 at CSP? You mean I made a mistake when I passed up living in
Sausalito after CSP bungled the opening days and could thereafter spread
only 20-40? Drat!>>
Yep, they spread 80-160 often on Weds and Fri nights, with usually 5 or so
players, occasionally full table. Many of the regulars are EXtreme
gamboolers who often reraise with the remotest sort of draw. I've seen Q
high call on the river, and win!
>>In another article, I said I would repost this old article, so without
further ado, here it is...
GREAT stuff, Abdul! I've printed it out and folded it inside my S&M book.
So, when are you writing your new book, "Playing High Limit Hold'em with
Maniacs"? :)
Raising their asses,
Dr. O
droa...@aol.com
I learned a VERY important lesson the other night...
When there's a calling station type in a short handed game, sit on his
right!
When I had the big blind, very often the CS would call under the gun,
which very often prevented the more aggressive players from raising my
blind. Cheap looks at the flop! Yippee!