Who agrees with Jason Pohl?

[Nikla]

Jason Pohl on pokerpages writes:

[ QUOTE ]
The two main differences between full and 5-person games are known to most advanced players, even if they are not fully understood. First, the relative value of big offsuited cards goes up, and the relative value of drawing hands go down. Second, the blind structure forces more action. Blinds come too often, and a good player cannot just wait for a premium holding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one who has serious problems accepting Jason's second statement?

[Vehn]

Yes.

[FrankLu99]

[ QUOTE ]
Jason Pohl on pokerpages writes:

[ QUOTE ]
The two main differences between full and 5-person games are known to most advanced players, even if they are not fully understood. First, the relative value of big offsuited cards goes up, and the relative value of drawing hands go down. Second, the blind structure forces more action. Blinds come too often, and a good player cannot just wait for a premium holding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Am I the only one who has serious problems accepting Jason's second statement?

[/ QUOTE ]


depends on what u define as premium. If you think 59s is premium (like me) u really dont have to wait for that many hands to find something playable.
If you think ATs is borderline premium then I think u need to play non premium hands.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
Am I the only one who has serious problems accepting Jason's second statement?

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree with it.

** I think a lot of it depends on your definaition of premium.

[Nikla]

Would you play a hand differently with the rationale: "Im BB in 3 hands"?

[Vehn]

So you think its a viable strategy to play the same number of hands in a short game as you would in a full game?

[Nikla]

You're missing my point completely. I'll let others comment before I give you my point of view.

[Vehn]

I'll be frantically pushing refresh.

[bugstud]

I see Vehn has premium sand now, instead of regular grain sand...

Anyway, I played exactly the same VPIP wise in the party 5/10 6max vs. full ring games, just a much higher aggression factor and PFR in the SH school. Playing on UB now, though, my VPIP is much higher, probably because I'm drifting towards LAGtiltitis.
Anyway, my definition of premium SH is 77+, ATs+, so I think you can wait for those.

Meh?

[Knox]

I would agree with it, it costs more to play than usual, so you're probably going to be playing more hands to maximize your profit.

[Nikla]

I'll try to explain my reasoning, and why I disagree with Jason.

You should play the hand according to its expectation. Image-creation and advertising set a side, it's all about what is + or -ev in the actual hand.

Will you really play the same hand differently when its folded to you on the button in a 5-handed vs a 10-handed game with the rationale "damn, im BB in 3 hands!"?

Blinds "coming too often" has nothing to do with the increased aggression in a 5-handed game. It simply puts players in situations where a raise often has more positive expectation than calling or folding.

[Peter_rus]

[ QUOTE ]
Blinds "coming too often" has nothing to do with the increased aggression in a 5-handed game. It simply puts players in situations where a raise often has more positive expectation than calling or folding.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. I think this is "It simply puts players in situations where a raise often has more positive expectation than calling or folding" what means by "playing more agressively".

To be more exact:

Suited connectors are not falling in value as well as ofsuit big hands value don't grow. Value is the same. But in SH much less situations when playing SC has positive ev as well as much more situations when plaing BO has more positive ev.

[fyodor]

What Pohl means by 'Blinds come more often' is that in for instance 10/20 you are paying 1.5 BB every 5 or 6 hands instead of every 10 hands. If you play the same cards at both structures you are obiously going to make less or lose more because of the additional cost.

An extreme example would be if you are playing HU. Are you still going to wait for the same cards you play 10 handed. If so lets go right now. You're starters have to be on a sliding scale depending on how many are at the table.

[Nikla]

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. Perhaps I'm bad at explaining.

I understand what Pohl meant, and in my opinion he is wrong. As i posted earlier it's all about what is + or -ev in the actual hand. If that is raising 44 utg in a 5-handed game or opening with 44 from CO-1 in a full ringgame doesnt matter. I can not see how being BB 3 hands ahead will change the way you should play a particular hand.

I will however say that Jason's statement has more substance to it if we're talking about an ultrashort game (HU or 3-way) and not the 5-handed game he specified in his opening remarks.

Peter: Good post regarding SC and BO. Thanks.

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
I understand what Pohl meant, and in my opinion he is wrong. As i posted earlier it's all about what is + or -ev in the actual hand. If that is raising 44 utg in a 5-handed game or opening with 44 from CO-1 in a full ringgame doesnt matter. I can not see how being BB 3 hands ahead will change the way you should play a particular hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if you are just argueing semantics or what here. Certianly you have to realize that the fact that when you are UTG+1 in a full game you need to play very tight, but when you are UTG+1 in a 5 handed game you are also the CO and therefore must open up you play considerably.

You aren't playing different becasue you will have to pay the BB in a hand or 2, you are playing different because you are basically always in LMP/LP.

[FrankLu99]

as the number of players decrease the ev of marignal hands hands increase because it is less likely that your hands are dominated and more likely that your hand is better than your opponents. you can expect hands like KTo to have +EV where at a full table it may or may not have +EV.

anyway that is just my thought
comments?

[MortalNuts]

Probably I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, because what I'm about to say is pretty obvious.

It's essentially meaningless to talk about the EV of a particular hand in isolation -- it depends on the particular hands your opponents are playing, and how they are playing them. In a shorthanded game, you will be up against fewer and different hands, played in different ways, because presumably your opponents are themselves making some adjustment for the fact that they can't simply wait around for AA-TT, AK-KQ, etc. So in a very real sense, the EV of the hands you play must also change, and that will affect your play on a per-hand basis.

The point is just that the "blinds coming too often" affects your opponents' hand selection, and so it must affect yours as well.

now, tell me what you really meant. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

just my 2c.

cheers,

mn

[Nikla]

[ QUOTE ]
You aren't playing different becasue you will have to pay the BB in a hand or 2, you are playing different because you are basically always in LMP/LP.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. It's basically the same argument as playing a 6-handed game just like you would play a 10-handed game with 4 folders. Shorthanded you're in more situations where a raise has positive expectation, being in the blinds got nothing to do with it.

[Nikla]

[ QUOTE ]
The point is just that the "blinds coming too often" affects your opponents' hand selection, and so it must affect yours as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who plays 2 identical hands in identical relative positions differently with the reasoning: "blinds come too often" are simply in the wrong.

I've come to the conclusion that I must be horribly bad at making myself understood. If there is anyone who understand my reasoning and is able to give a better explanation, it will be very appreciated.

[MortalNuts]

Okay. If you're saying that there is no intrinsic difference in the hands you should play when a) in a 10-handed game when all have folded to you in the CO and b) in a 6-handed game when all have folded to you in the CO, then I agree with you up to a point (despite the fact that in the latter case fewer people have folded). The big caveat to that statement is of course that your play/hand-selection must depend on the way your opponents are likely to play. If the two situations played exactly the same -- i.e. you were equally likely to be 3-bet if you open-raise with a couple people left to act in both games, the blinds are equally likely to fold, etc. -- then your hands and actions would be the same. (You do in principle have somewhat more information in the full ring game than in the SH one, because you know that several players didn't have strong enough holdings to play. But in practice I don't think this matters much.) But ime that is seldom the case, at least not at the 2/4 and 3/6 tables I frequent -- players at a table that is playing shorthanded tend to be much more willing to 3-bet with marginal holdings, for instance, than are ring-game players defending their BB against a CO open-raise. Their actions and hands are likely to be different, so the hands you choose to play and how you play them should also be somewhat different. That's a secondary effect, but I think a real one.

just my 2c.

cheers,

mn

[Nottom]

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly. It's basically the same argument as playing a 6-handed game just like you would play a 10-handed game with 4 folders. Shorthanded you're in more situations where a raise has positive expectation, being in the blinds got nothing to do with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

So basically this whole thread is you don't agree with how he phrased it, becasue thats basically all he is saying IMO.