SSH strategy applied to shorthanded games

[Luv2DriveTT]

This is my first post in this forum, so please refer me to a previous post if this has already been discussed.

Ed Miller's SSH shows us how to play effectivly as a LAG player when a game has 6 or more players seeing the flop regularly. I was wondering how this applys to 3-6 handed tables where the pot doesn't grow big enough since there are often not enough players seeing the flop.

My fear is now that I have greatly loosened up my game and have become very agressive that I have to become much tighter when I play shorthanded, yet it seems that shorthanded games are very effective for loose agressive players. Can anybody quantify the math for me, to advise the best style of play? It would be an interesting subject in a book, too bad nobody has written about this yet.

In da club /images/graemlins/club.gif

[purnell]

I've been most successful at 6 handed games when I play fairly tight (seeing around 27% of flops, less if I get raised off of my blinds alot). Knowing your opponents becomes very important in these games, as alot of the time it ends up being heads up or three handed after the flop. There are hands, particularly mid/low suited connectors, that I play less often shorthanded. On the other hand big unsuited cards play better in these games than at a full table (KQ, AJ, KJ, etc). Hopefully there will be more responses to your post, as I'd like to know what the other posters think about this.

[gonores]

I can't do the math for you, but I can tell you that playing fast, understanding the values of marginal hands like A-high, and knowing your opponents are the three keys to SH. Most of the concepts in SSH still apply.

[Luv2DriveTT]

Interesting that you play fairly tight, I would think you would play otherwise in a shorthanded game.

Do you find most of your opponents to look specifically for short handed games because they are better players, or because they are affraid to face a bigger field of 10 players? Do 6 handed games at Party attract more fish, and if so - why?

[purnell]

Compared to 10 handed 1/2 at party, you will find the players looser and more aggressive. I'm sure I play fewer hands than 95% of party 1/2 6-max players, and that may well be too tight. But the vast majority of party 1/2 players are seeing around half of flops, maybe more. Most will play and even raise with any ace, any suited cards, Kxo, Qxo, etc. There are quite a few maniacs as well, seeing nearly every flop and raising with almost anything.

edit: When the game gets shorter than 5 hands, obviously you have to loosen up with your starting requirements. I'm not good heads up, and when it gets down to three or sometimes four players, I usually just find another table, unless I'm playing with idiots.

[tripdad]

there are more "fish" in SH games than full ring. this is not to say that players are always calling down with gutshots (though there is still plenty of that...see packerfan's post on Squeeze), rather it is more loose and aggressive preflop and you get paid off by 2nd best hand way more often IMO.

my guess as to the reason why is that hands like KJ, while dominated frequently in a full ring, become more valuable against fewer opponents because you are always closer to the button. thus, those who like frequent action are drawn to the SH game. you also get to play a lot more hands per hour.

understand, this is what the fish think...not my personal view. yes, i can play a hand(A-8o, KJ, etc.) in SH that i cannot in full ring, but i also have to fold(mid suited connectors, small pairs)at least as many that i would normally play in full ring. the fish seem to just add hands, not subtract any.

cheers!

[Luv2DriveTT]

So do you think short handed games attracts more fish than normal games? What is the appeal to the first time fish?

Lets get into the psychology of it all, so I am fully armed to know who my opponent might be.

[prayformojo]

My guess is that two of the factors drawing poor players, especially maniacs, are the speed of the game and the potential for intimidation.

At 6-max 1/2 I have found players who will raise pre-flop any time it is checked to them on the button, in the CO, or in front of the CO. If they are up against slightly tighter opponents, that means they can go for a blind steal in half the hands they play. I would guess that watching people fold again and again when they have garbage strokes the maniacs' ego pretty nicely.

[naphand]

No I don't think there are more "fish" in SH games. The fish are just more obvious, they give themselves away by always calling with any draw, regardless of the odds. They do this in full ring games as well, but usually more correctly.

I don't think there are more of them, but they can be exploited more easily as they are less frequently drawing correctly.

The biggest difference IMO is the number of LAG players. SH attracts action junkies and bullies. In full ring games I recall it was quite rare to see 2 maniacs on one table, even just one was not that common. SH it is a regular thing to have at least 1 psycho turn up, and not at all unusual to see 2 over-aggro players at one table.

You also get the chance to play very short-handed more frequently (against 2-3 or HU), which gives you more plenty of opportunity to outplay your opponents, most of whom either play the same as full-ring or are pretty transparent.

SH also gives you better opportunity to get reads on players. Trying to gauge 4-5 opponents is much, much easier than 8-9. In a full-ring game you are looking at 2-3 calling stations, a couple of tight players, a very aggro player, a tricky/tight player and still 1 or 2 others. SH you can quickly see 2 loose callers, 1 over-aggro, a tight player and 1 unknown. Much easier to play the table.

[Matty]

Someone said the greatest thing ever to me in a 6-max game tonight.

He bluffed the river A when I had been betting into him all along. I called, and afterwards while talking about it he said "I wouldn't have bet if I had anything".

Swear to god. He showed down J high.

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
afterwards while talking about it he said "I wouldn't have bet if I had anything".

[/ QUOTE ]

What he said makes perfect sense.

You dont bet if you have something little, enough to win a showdown against a busted draw (say you have a baby pair or unhit AT) because if you bet he will fold the hands you can beat and call with the hands that beats you.

But if you have nothing at all - say J high - you bet becuase your only chance to win the pot is to bluff.

You bet the good hands and the hopeless, the hands in between are more tricky.

[kiddo]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting that you play fairly tight, I would think you would play otherwise in a shorthanded game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not many good, winning players SH is seeing more then 30% flops. You have to be much more aggressive with marginal hands. Being loose is a misstake (being loose=calling), because you will often not have the pot odds to draw. If you hit a flushdraw headsup, play it as if you flopped toppair, good kicker in a full ring game. Bet, dont call.

When I, a year ago, played a soft 2/4, full ring, I saw 27%. Now I play 5/10, 6max, and I think I am down to 25%. If I didnt multitable I would see a little more flop because what you come in with is very dependent on what you think the others comes in with.