Short Handed V's Full Ring Games |
|
Posted Mon Oct 23, 2006 7:20 am GMT by wEbMaStEr
Which do you prefer and why?
Both have advantages and disadvantages, I prefer a full table because the blinds take longer to come round and I can pick and choose my hands easier that way rather than feeling forced to play lesser hands.
I odn't really have a lot of experience on shorthanded games tho.
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:00 am GMT by Dave B
If I am multi-tabling, I like full tables. If I am playing a single table at higher stakes, I prefer short handed.
Posted Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:08 am GMT by MrDarling
full table for the same reasons as yours. Also, I'm clearing a bonus, so I want bigger pots and I think more people = bigger pots. Though I'm not actually sure this is true.
Also, when choosing a table I'm looking for a table with the biggest % to see the flop.
Posted Mon Oct 23, 2006 8:57 am GMT by tame_deuces
Shorthanded games. I am a good player in SH hold'em, and people generally play horribly in low stakes SH games.
Posted Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:14 am GMT by Dave B
Speaking of horrible players, I had an live one a few nights ago. He would raise w/ junk connectors, so I often 3 bet to isolate. I did this w/ A8 suited (a hand I VERY rarely 3 bet).
Flop 765, not bad. Turn 4, no way he puts me on the straight. He check raised the turn, trying to represent a str8, now he might have 89, but I really think he just wants to steal and doesnt feel I have it-so I 3 bet and he caps. Wow. I call.
River blank, he checks to me and I bet, he CALLS. J10 suited w/ no flush draw on the board. $150 heads up pot w/ J high.
Posted Mon Oct 23, 2006 11:34 am GMT by wEbMaStEr
He check/called you with a Jack high? There were only 3 hands worse than J high that you could have had?  Ah well, I spose he didn't want to leave his children out there unprotected  
Posted Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:00 pm GMT by Dave B
Did you miss read something? The J10 was SOOTED!
Posted Mon Oct 23, 2006 12:27 pm GMT by Miss_J
i love 6 handed. i used to feel the way webby does with regards to having more time to pick and choose, but now i don't find that necessary.
Posted Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:26 pm GMT by wEbMaStEr
See that's another thing, when I talk about "waiting for hands" what I actually mean is waiting for position. I'm quite (very) LAGgy and having position is the biggest part of my game, In shorthanded games you've virtually always got position lol this can either be very good or very baaaaaaad for me. Full games kinda rein me in a bit. 
Posted Mon Oct 23, 2006 1:49 pm GMT by supafrey
while people are generally more likely to make serious mistakes at shorthanded play, I too like having the positional advantage of 5-6 hands where I'm most likely going to steal the button in FH play.
It's just about finding the hand and showdown range of either one and sticking with it.
Posted Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:35 pm GMT by arras
I usually play full ring out of habit and I think it suits my game. I have tried short handed a few times when I thought I was good and sucked at it horribly. The last few times I have played around on it I have done well, but I don't that means much either way.
Posted Fri Oct 27, 2006 11:36 am GMT by lwestatbus
| arras wrote: | | I usually play full ring out of habit and I think it suits my game. I have tried short handed a few times when I thought I was good and sucked at it horribly. The last few times I have played around on it I have done well, but I don't that means much either way. |
I agree with arras. On my site short handed games tend to be very, very aggressive with pretty bad play but... I don't really have a good feel for how to adjust starting card requirements for SH play and so find myself getting raised out of pots that I really shouldn't. So I stick with full table almost all of the time. Oh, this is all limit.
An odd observation, though, is that I don't have any problems adapting my game in NL SnGs as the number of players winds down. Go figure.
Posted Sat Oct 28, 2006 3:56 am GMT by Moon_Child
I like the 5-6 Handed games... they are more action and they force you to play, instead of just waiting for hands in a full ring table. It's just easier to win for me.
Posted Sat Oct 28, 2006 10:46 am GMT by 1988 TR
Definitely short handed for me. I like to be aggressive.
Posted Sat Oct 28, 2006 2:44 pm GMT by xDiamond_CutteRx
I prefer short-handed. It's much easier for me to frustrate my opponents into giving me all their chips when they have the blind that much more often. Plus, it means I get to play all sorts of quirky hands, or as I like to call it, real Poker.
Posted Mon Oct 30, 2006 2:06 am GMT by Phil14312
whats this thing you call full-table?
|
|
