Adjusting to 5 or 6 Max Tables

There is no doubt I've been experiencing a bad run of cards lately. However, I am concerned that I may not be adjusting properly to the style of play in these 5-handed or 6-handed games. I am aware of the conventional wisdom that it is correct to play more aggressively in short-handed games. However, the short-handed 10-20 tables at this cybercardroom usually have more large multiway pots than the 10-handed tables.


I tend to approach short-handed play in much the same way as I would in a full ring game when the early position players have folded. The problem is that most of my opponents at these short tables do not respond like their ring game counterparts. They defend their blinds more, and they chase more after the flop. I am beginning to wonder whether my play at these tables is too tight and too aggressive.


Here's a typical example: After having mucked all my hands for a round or two, I open-raise from late position with JTs. In a normal ring game, I would expect to steal the blinds about 40% of the time; in this game, it's less than 20%. In this case, both blinds call. I imagine they may be thinking to themselves: "If I catch a pair with my 64, I'll crack this rock's AK/AQ!"


The blinds check to me on the flop of K-8-7 rainbow. Against typical opponents, I would semi-bluff here and expect to take the pot down perhaps 35% of the time. Against these two loose-aggessives, however, my chance of getting both to fold is about 10% (though there's a good chance they'll check to me on the turn). Is this enough to justify a semi-bluff? Should I just take a free card here?


I decide to bet and am called by one of the loosies. Now the turn card is a king, pairing the board. If I bet, my opponent will fold if he has no pair and no draw, and there is some chance he might even fold a small pair. Should I bet again or take the free card?


If I take the free card, my opponent will very likely bet into me on the river, and I'll have to choose between folding and bluff-raising (unless I catch a pair). To avoid this dilemma, I fire a second barrel.


My opponent calls again. This means he probably has a small pair or a straight draw. The river is a 4, making a straight possible. My opponent checks and I decide to check as well, since I do not think I can make him laydown a hand that I couldn't beat...unless he also had JT. Of course, my opponent's 64 takes down the pot.


If these were loose-passive opponents, one could simply forsake most bluff/semibluffs. However, these loose-aggressive opponents are likely to bet you out of the hand if you show weakness. Perhaps the best strategy would be to take more free cards on the flop in order to raise (or bet)the turn (for value or as a bluff).


How do you adjust to very loose and aggressive short-handed players?

Playing a shorthanded table where they are not agressive and they keep calling because they are chasing you, seems like a great game to me. You definitely have to do some little adjustments but this sounds like a very soft game. One of the adjustments that I would recommend most against players like these. Is to be a little pickier about your raising preflop standards. In most shorthanded games from late position with everyone folding before me, I will raise with just about anything. However, if the opponents defend more than most, I will raise the standards.

But don't give any free cards, because against opponents like them, your are probably ahead most of the time. Remember, if you are just calling, chasing in shorthanded games is a FOR SURE way to lose.


Enrique

Hello!


The way this games is described it reminds me of the games I am talking about in the thread below: "Stepping up in Limit"


Unfortunatly theese guys only calls when they think you are weak and often start raising you on the expensive streets when they have something or think you might fold.


Abdul Jalib stated in a thread in another forum:

===

What isn't so good are the loose games that don't have much preflop raising but are aggressive in a smart way postflop. There I'm forced to play a lot of suited hands preflop and to jam with strong draws postflop, and that happens to be exactly how my opponents are playing.

===


I think that this might be such a game, which makes it quite tough. How do one adjust to such a game? What else do I have to consider except for the things that Abdul mentions?

Simply avoid those games. The reason why I have been sooo profitable playing online is not because I'm a poker genious. It's because I make DAMN sure to play in shorthanded tables against weak opponents.

There are plenty of soft games online. You just have to look for a little bit.

Paradise has an awesome site, but I never play there. Why ? Because the best players are there.


Enrique

Playing a shorthanded table where they are not agressive and they keep calling because they are chasing you, seems like a great game to me.


These are aggressive (and very loose) players who also know how to slow down and play "rope a dope," and I have too often been the dope. These players sometimes become more passive against me when I'm in late position because I play tenaciously against them and often raise the turn.


be a little pickier about your raising preflop standards.


I agree, but think I may not have been picky enough. Would you open limp with hands like JT, Q8s, 97s, 44 in late position? Or just muck them?


But don't give any free cards, because against opponents like them, your are probably ahead most of the time.


I believe this is usually untrue if you have two opponents and no pair on the flop (unless perhaps you hold a big ace); it is even less likely to be true after you bet your no-pair hand on the flop and get called by one or two opponents.


In these situations, I think I may be semi-bluffing too much against loose-aggressive opponents. Perhaps I should limit these flop semi-bluffs to hands which have very little chance of winning a showdown unimproved. The advantage of this is I could take a free turn card and then fold to a bet on the river without worrying that I mucked a winner.

Where is this Abdul thread? Did he suggest that games with little preflop raising and smart postflop aggression are WORSE than games with considerable preflop raising and smart postflop aggression? Did he suggest he would be more inclined to jam with a draw when there was no preflop raise?

There are plenty of soft games online.


Are you referring to low limits? The 10-20 short-handed games I have encountered have nearly always been aggressive, seldom having more than one relatively passive participant. I have tended to choose games with mostly loose-aggressives; perhaps I would be better off in games with a balance of loose-aggressive and tight-aggressive players.

"These are aggressive (and very loose) players who also know how to slow down and play 'rope a dope,' and I have too often been the dope. These players sometimes become more passive against me when I'm in late position because I play tenaciously against them and often raise the turn."


If they can successfully rope-a-dope you, then you may be betting too aggressively, especially if they don't fold enough. The fact that this fellow didn't fold a 6-4 makes it very likely he doesn't fold anywhere near as frequently as he should. This means you should not be bluffing/semi-bluffing, but should be betting/raising for value.


(other poster)"be a little pickier about your raising preflop standards."


(you)"I agree, but think I may not have been picky enough. Would you open limp with hands like JT, Q8s, 97s, 44 in late position? Or just muck them?"


If you're playing against loose opponents, then you can play a wide range of hands. So you shouldn't muck them (the exaples you gave, which are pretty good hands). However, if they will call anytime you raise, then raising to win their blinds doesn't make sense. You should raise purely for value (since they're going to call). The reason to be pickier in your raises is because they shouldn't be for steals, but because your hand is strong enough to be a clear favorite.


(other poster)"But don't give any free cards, because against opponents like them, your are probably ahead most of the time."


(you)"I believe this is usually untrue if you have two opponents and no pair on the flop (unless perhaps you hold a big ace); it is even less likely to be true after you bet your no-pair hand on the flop and get called by one or two opponents.


In these situations, I think I may be semi-bluffing too much against loose-aggressive opponents. Perhaps I should limit these flop semi-bluffs to hands which have very little chance of winning a showdown unimproved. The advantage of this is I could take a free turn card and then fold to a bet on the river without worrying that I mucked a winner."


There's roughly a 38% chance any given player will have a pair if the board is unpaired (6% dealt pair, 32% flop pair), so you're right in that a no-pair hand is likely to be behind. If you don't have a straight or flush draw, you have perhaps 6 outs, which makes you about 7-1 against improving on the turn and 3-1 against by the river. If you can get a free card on the turn by betting on the flop, that's a great deal. So betting a no-pair hand to avoid giving a free card against two callers doesn't make sense, but betting it to get one does. (Betting an Ace on the flop to avoid giving a free card against one caller makes sense, since you're a slight favorite.)


If your opponent just won't fold, your strategy should be geared to getting as much as you can out of your good hands, and losing as little as possible on your others. This seems kind of a self-evident statement, but it's not. Against better opponents, you can think in terms of trying to get more out of your not-so-good hands, even at the expense of sacrificing some profit on your good hands, since you'll get a lot more not-so-good hands. So plays like bluffing/semi-bluffing on the come, turn-raising, bluff re-raising etc. can work, but against weak players a non-deceptive straight-forward strategy is more likely to succeed.

Micheal, I was DEFINITELY referring to the lower limits. I stick to 2-4 to 3-6, and from time to time 5-10 online.

I have found 10-20 games to be too tough for me online. Actually, I never have played 10-20 online, but after much careful watching. I know that I do not want to be a part of that.


Enrique

Good post Tewall


Enrique

It's in the "General Theory" forum.


The thread is "I'm better against pros. Is this possible?"

This means you should not be bluffing/semi-bluffing, but should be betting/raising for value.


Yes. It is ironic that I must reduce my aggressiveness in short-handed games. As for value-betting, I'm starting to get gunshy about betting strong pairs/overpairs on the river due to a fairly incredible string of river suckouts. If I wimp out on the river, however, my opponent will often bet for me!


If you're playing against loose opponents, then you can play a wide range of hands. So you shouldn't muck them (the exaples you gave, which are pretty good hands).


At a full table, I very seldomly open-limp with "pretty good" hands from mid/late position. This is another area in which I'm having trouble reducing my aggressiveness. Many of my opponents will play these hands utg at the 6-max table. How low would you go in starting hand requirements in a very loose-aggressive short-handed game?


If you can get a free card on the turn by betting on the flop, that's a great deal.


I think it's a great deal if you have AK (with which you would call your opponents river bet) or two small cards (with which you would fold to your opponent's river bet). With medium-big cards, I'm not so sure it's a good deal if your opponent sometimes forces you to laydown the winner on the river.


If your opponent just won't fold, your strategy should be geared to getting as much as you can out of your good hands, and losing as little as possible on your others.


I think this is good advice. I've certainly had no problem getting my strong hands paid off, but I've been losing too much with other hands.


Thanks,


Mike

How low would you go in starting hand requirements in a very loose-aggressive short-handed game?




Abdul has a chart on www.posev.com (http://www.posev.com) which I think gives a helpful starting point. It was written for a full ring game rather than short-handed, which means you can play a bit more than he suggests since in a short-handed game your opponents will have random hands, whereas in a ring game they will have, on the average, somewhat better than average hands.




I think it's a great deal if you have AK (with which you would call your opponents river bet) or two small cards (with which you would fold to your opponent's river bet). With medium-big cards, I'm not so sure it's a good deal if your opponent sometimes forces you to laydown the winner on the river.




If you can get a free card on the turn just by betting on the flop, that's a great deal, provided you have a hand that can improve to a winner. If your opponent forces you to lay down a winner on the river, you've only cost yourself a bet, but you've given yourself a cheap opportunity to win the pot.




I think this is good advice. I've certainly had no problem getting my strong hands paid off, but I've been losing too much with other hands.




Against poorer opponents who play too many hands and won't fold, proper stategy is less interesting and more straight-forward than against good opponents. You simply play to get the money in when you're a favorite, and take the bad beats as they come.