Need help understanding 6 handed play.
PattyP
started with 25/50NL then onto 50/100NL when we have at least 5 total players at
the table.
for the last 2 months, on 9 player tables (averaging 5-7 players at the table)
50/100NL I have been up 22 big blinds bets per hour played.
After three week short handed, I am up 62 big blind bets per hour(some of the
time I hand Dustin Dirksen at the table, and he is good for the predictable
double up and Ripitain or something like that who give the CDU as well).
Why so Much ahead?
I have stayed away from short handed play, because of fear I guess. Fear of
wild play, fear of the game moving so fast, and fear of not understanding "short
handed play",
but now, I am thinking, why did I not play this earlier?
What is causing this large increase from 7 players at 9 player table, as opposed
to 5-6 players at 6 handed table?
What am I missing?
RPGers can help me understand.
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
The key to understanding 6 handed play is that it's really not short-handed in
the sense that you should make adjustments in how you play (5 players behind you
in a 6 handed game isn't really different from 6 players behind you in a 10
handed game). But, the other players think it is really short-handed. You you
should make adjustments to the mistakes those players will make as a result.
You need to respond to the fact that the other players will be very aggresive,
but you don't need to make any direct response to how many players got dealt in.
I'm talking about 6-handed. 4-handed, and maybe even 5 handed is different.
A couple of days ago I started making some notes on optimal stopping rule
problems for a series of posts I'm planning for http://www.mathandpoker.com/
The relevance of that class of math problems to short handed play is that one of
the things you do in hand selection is solve a stopping rule problem -- you
determine a cutoff for playable hands and wait until you reach that cutoff.
When you get shorthanded the cost (in terms of forgone pot equity, not in terms
of blinds posted) per folded hand gets bigger. At 10 hands per round, the cost
isn't so large per hand that you shouldn't fold a lot of hands.; But,l when you
get to 4 handed the cost per hand gets big and you don't want to fold so many
hands. I don't think 6 handed is as close to 4 as most people think (I know
it's not linear from 10 to 4).
On Jul 13 2006 2:52 PM, PattyP wrote:
> Recently started 3 weeks ago playing 6 handed max tables.
>
> started with 25/50NL then onto 50/100NL when we have at least 5 total players
> at
> the table.
>
> for the last 2 months, on 9 player tables (averaging 5-7 players at the table)
> 50/100NL I have been up 22 big blinds bets per hour played.
>
> After three week short handed, I am up 62 big blind bets per hour(some of the
> time I hand Dustin Dirksen at the table, and he is good for the predictable
> double up and Ripitain or something like that who give the CDU as well).
>
> Why so Much ahead?
>
> I have stayed away from short handed play, because of fear I guess. Fear of
> wild play, fear of the game moving so fast, and fear of not understanding
> "short
> handed play",
>
> but now, I am thinking, why did I not play this earlier?
>
> What is causing this large increase from 7 players at 9 player table, as
> opposed
> to 5-6 players at 6 handed table?
>
> What am I missing?
>
> RPGers can help me understand.
>
>
>
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
DennisP
I have played 6 max minimally, both limit and NL. I haven't played
much and haven't had much success. I notice that I change my game to
be much more aggressive, thinking I need to, more so in limit than NL.
Could a succesfull full ring player play the same at 6 max if they
pretended the first 3 players had already folded and have success
without opening their typical starting hands up?
Nick Wool
On Jul 13 2006 8:52 PM, PattyP wrote:
> Recently started 3 weeks ago playing 6 handed max tables.
>
> started with 25/50NL then onto 50/100NL when we have at least 5 total players
> at
> the table.
>
If you are playing real money at that level, are you sure you need advice from
this place?
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
Gary Carson
On Jul 13 2006 3:14 PM, DennisP wrote:
> Great thoughts Gary.
>
> I have played 6 max minimally, both limit and NL. I haven't played
> much and haven't had much success. I notice that I change my game to
> be much more aggressive, thinking I need to, more so in limit than NL.
>
> Could a succesfull full ring player play the same at 6 max if they
> pretended the first 3 players had already folded and have success
> without opening their typical starting hands up?
Some could. Some couldn't. A lot of succesfull full ring players don't cope
well with aggresive opponents. I doubt they'd survive a table full of them.
Adjust to the opponents, not to the number of chairs.
> > http://www.garycarson.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________
> > Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - /
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
DennisP
Corinthian McVitie Keogh
> The relevance of that class of math problems to short handed play is that one of
> the things you do in hand selection is solve a stopping rule problem -- you
> determine a cutoff for playable hands and wait until you reach that cutoff.
> When you get shorthanded the cost (in terms of forgone pot equity, not in terms
> of blinds posted) per folded hand gets bigger. At 10 hands per round, the cost
> isn't so large per hand that you shouldn't fold a lot of hands.; But,l when you
> get to 4 handed the cost per hand gets big and you don't want to fold so many
> hands. I don't think 6 handed is as close to 4 as most people think (I know
> it's not linear from 10 to 4).
What are you thinking, exponential (or log, if it's the inverse), or
some power rule? Or not like a continuous function at all? How would you
rank the starting cards to make that graph? %win if nobody folds? Some
other EV measure? I'd like to see this stuff when you have it done.
--
It's five o'clock somewhere
Corinthian McVitie Keogh
but a few times I didn't find a space at a 10seat so sat at a 6seat, and
all I needed was to loosen up just a little - only a little, and I got
about the same return - maybe a little better, but the sample's too
small to be reliable. I'd thought it would be higher variance and
require more aggression etc, but it seemed not to be true.
ChrisBrown
> Could a succesfull full ring player play the same at 6 max if they
> pretended the first 3 players had already folded and have success
> without opening their typical starting hands up?
in my experience (probably less than 10k hands at specifically 6 max
tables) aside from utg and the button, you can't really compare the other
4 position at a 6 max table to that of a full. Players that choose to
play at a 6max table just have a different mindset than those that choose
to play at a full table. As Gary said, it's more responding to the player.
_____________________________________________________________________
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
Gary Carson
Poker, (Lyle Stuart 2001)), available in fine book stores everywhere, is that
there is a huge difference in short handed B/M games -- daytime games tend to be
just started with players who know it's going to be short handed when they sit
down and late night games tend to be players who don't have another game to play
in. The players in the late night short handed games almost never know what
they're doing. The players in the daytime short handed games almost always know
what they're doing. (that's in addition to the usual difference between daytime
and nighttime players).
On Jul 13 2006 3:43 PM, ChrisBrown wrote:
> On Jul 13 2006 3:14 PM, DennisP wrote:
>
> > Could a succesfull full ring player play the same at 6 max if they
> > pretended the first 3 players had already folded and have success
> > without opening their typical starting hands up?
>
> in my experience (probably less than 10k hands at specifically 6 max
> tables) aside from utg and the button, you can't really compare the other
> 4 position at a 6 max table to that of a full. Players that choose to
> play at a 6max table just have a different mindset than those that choose
> to play at a full table. As Gary said, it's more responding to the player.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Block Lists, Favorites, and more - http://www.recpoker.com
DennisP
shorthanded empty seat games compared to full table specific short
handed games.
Gary Carson
A good online source for the mathmatics of stopping rule problems is at
http://www.math.ucla.edu/~tom/Stopping/Contents.html
You'll need to know some math to read it.
When I wrote my book, before I wrote the short chapter on short handed games I
did a bunch of simulations with TTH. A winning profile 10 handed was still a
winning profile 6 handed. But, not so much so 4 handed. That's why I know it's
not linear.
Since the cost distribution in poker is lumpy and cyclycal (cost changes with
position) I don't expect a functional form to be clear-cut if you use actual
cost funcitons. If you impose some kind of continious function as a cost
function then the form of the deicison rule function will be determined by the
form of that function.
I don't really know how to model it. I've only recently started thinking about
it in terms of stopping rules.
Gary Carson
http://www.garycarson.com
_______________________________________________________________
Tad Perry
news:1152820336$829...@recpoker.com...
> Recently started 3 weeks ago playing 6 handed max tables.
>
> started with 25/50NL then onto 50/100NL when we have at least 5 total
players at
> the table.
>
> for the last 2 months, on 9 player tables (averaging 5-7 players at the
table)
> 50/100NL I have been up 22 big blinds bets per hour played.
>
> After three week short handed, I am up 62 big blind bets per hour(some of
the
> time I hand Dustin Dirksen at the table, and he is good for the
predictable
> double up and Ripitain or something like that who give the CDU as well).
>
> Why so Much ahead?
>
> I have stayed away from short handed play, because of fear I guess. Fear
of
> wild play, fear of the game moving so fast, and fear of not understanding
"short
> handed play",
>
> but now, I am thinking, why did I not play this earlier?
>
> What is causing this large increase from 7 players at 9 player table, as
opposed
> to 5-6 players at 6 handed table?
>
> What am I missing?
>
> RPGers can help me understand.
Skill begins to dominate more and more as a poker game goes short-handed.
This is mostly due to the fact that it's proper to play more hands and that
you will face more chances to make the right decision in a unit of time. If
you're far ahead of your competition it will add up fast and you'll just
bust the table. Bad players lose money directly to you and you don't have to
split what they lose with other good players.
More specifically, consider two cases: one where a really bad player and
players playing with skill comparable to yours play 9-handed and where you
and 3 equally skilled players play him 5-handed. If the bad player loses
$800 per night, you split that with your comparably skilled friends and net
$100 if 9-handed, but assuming he loses the same amount short-handed, you
and the three other equally skilled players are going to split $200 per
night. But the assumptin that he'll lose the same is wrong. The truth is
he'll lose more. A guy that can lose $900 in a night at a full table will
probably lose about $1200 at a short one because more hands played equals
more chances for him to lose.
So your actual cut is going to be something like $300 per night to play with
this guy short-handed versus $100 10-handed. This isn't exactly the game
you're describing, of course, but it illustrates a basic principle that's in
effect. If you're way better than the competition then everyone is a
"bad-player" relatively speaking and the same effect will be found to
varying degrees in each separate matchup at the table.
Probably you just didn't realize that skill really takes over short-handed
and that you really have become skillful. Also you probably just hadn't
realized the full implications of what this means to your bottom line.
What site are you playing on anyway?
tvp
PattyP
Gary's answer was helpful too. His are getting better recently, it took a few
tries to read his answer ti figure out what he was saying.
Yours is also helpful. It explains in more detail what I was trying to figure
out what was going on.
I tried to figure out the math of the short table, but I just could not get a
grip on where to start. I was worried because friends of mine were telling me
that the short table dynamics are different around the blind positions, and they
also said that in some positions, usually weak positions were places to raise,
like in the BB and one off the button i think.
I could not understand them completely so i often stayed away from short
tables. Been playing since the eighties, so just going from Seven Card stud to
holdem took some time. Lets face it all the money is in holdem right now. Then
I had to move from Limit holdem to NLHE, and that took time. Now moved to short
play.
I had less percentage of variance playing NLHE than I have lately on Limit
holdem. It is funny how one or two strong players on a nine player limit holdem
table get run down from all the bad weak players. These guys call down when
they have two outs, and to make the variance worse, it is like 3-4 callers to
the river, all who have 2-4 outs, when you add that up you are now against 8-16
outs on their weak hands.
Anyway,
I play full tables on Stars NLHE, (not too much anymore)
I play short at Full Tilt mostly and a little on Prima sites. These
Scandinavian players or European players, like to bet (bluff) all the time.
Also played on PokerRoom/FullContactPoker a few times.
Dreamclown is good for some big wins and Daniel N. is also good for some profits
when playing heads-up. Watch out fro Patrick ANntious, he never misses a flush
or straight draw and that sucks.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com