Is it worth stopping by the 5 max tables?

[Aaron W.]

I'm in the middle of plotting my course for the next year of poker and I'm wondering what thoughts people have about the shorthanded tables. I know this has been touched on before, but I had a hard time finding those posts.

1) What skills do you hone playing at such tables (and don't say "it improves your agression" unless you qualify it with some explanations - what specific cases do you get useful agression, how does this skill extend to higher level games, etc.).
2) What sorts of win rates would a solid player expect to have at these tables?
3) It seems reasonable that you would have a much higher variance playing these games as you play so many more hands. What is the bankroll requirement for such games?
4) Is the end result worth the time invested or is it better to just move past these games?

Thanks

[Vaftrudner]

1) Well you *need* to be more aggressive, and you need to stand more aggression and you need to defend your blinds more.
2) /images/graemlins/smile.gif (How solid, what level, what competition. 2-3 bb/100 maybe).
3) Will you play them forever then 500 BB. For a shot much lower.
4) It's worth it imho.

/v

[Aaron W.]

B
U
M
P
*

[topspin]

Try this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=1369978&page=14&view=coll apsed&sb=5&o=14&fpart=1).

[Fiddler]

[ QUOTE ]

1) What skills do you hone playing at such tables (and don't say "it improves your agression" unless you qualify it with some explanations - what specific cases do you get useful agression, how does this skill extend to higher level games, etc.).


[/ QUOTE ]

I think the most valuable lesson is that you learn to play against only one or two players post-flop and how that affects the value of your hand. It will also give you more opportunity to steal blinds, semi-bluff, make plays against specific opponents and you learn to really appreciate the value of position. One funny consequence when you go back to a full-ring game is that it will feel very unnatural to only call pre-flop. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]

2) What sorts of win rates would a solid player expect to have at these tables?


[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea and wouldn't worry about it too much when you start out.

[ QUOTE ]

3) It seems reasonable that you would have a much higher variance playing these games as you play so many more hands. What is the bankroll requirement for such games?


[/ QUOTE ]

Yup, that is certainly the case. It isn't uncommon to play a couple of orbits be down 30-40BB, stay there and then all of a sudden win a couple of pots and be in the green again. I think the recommendation is 500BB if you plan to play it regularly.

One thing that can really affect the variance is also where you play. I have only a limited amount of hands at Party 1/2 6-max and can't really remember anything specific about it. At Absolute they seem to have a lot of players cold-calling pre-flop raises and then getting aggressive if they catch anything. PokerStars is pretty aggressive both pre and post flop and people will 3-bet to isolate, bluff raise the turn and generally be annoying. /images/graemlins/smile.gif Interpoker is full of calling-zombies that call, call and then to liven things up call again. Paradise 5-max seemed pretty aggressive compared to Interpoker and Absolute. All of the sites I've tried are loose at the 1/2 limit. Keep in mind though that my comments are relative my experience at 0.5/1 and 1/2 full-ring. I doubt the 2/4, 3/6 or 5/10 6-max players think any of these sites are aggressive.

[ QUOTE ]

4) Is the end result worth the time invested or is it better to just move past these games?


[/ QUOTE ]

I think it is worth trying out. Give it 10k hands or so and see if you like it or think you have learned anything.

Edit: I also recommend that you single table for quite a while because most situations are very opponent specific.

[droolie]

[ QUOTE ]

4) Is the end result worth the time invested or is it better to just move past these games?

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

How valuable is your time? I think learning every aspect of the game is valuable. I'm plotting my move to 6 max games from playing exclusively full-ring games for the last 7 months. I've always felt out of my element when a full-ring game suddenly loses three or four players. I think it would definitely be to my benefit to fix this leak in my game because this scenario happens in almost every session. I also see many more pots being played 3 or 2 way post-flop at 1/2 than at .50/1. SH play seems to be a great game for mastering this skill.


You will certainly find more pots contested 2 way and 3 way at the higher limits. Why not practice this skill at a shorthanded table at a reasonable limit? Who knows you might actually be better at it. I've heard the 5/10 six-max games are very lucrative if played well. I'm not willing to skip this type of game. If you ever find friends who want to play live home games you are likely to be playing shorthanded. Why not be ready for this situation?

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
How valuable is your time?

[/ QUOTE ]

My long term goal is to be knowledgable enough about playing Hold'em that I'd be comfortable playing in a mid to high limit game. That's something like a 15-20 year plan (maybe even longer at the rate I'm going - moving towards life as an academic comes first). So is it worth my time to play these games? Only if I'm learning something useful. I'm not interested in a blind agression game, which is what I'm afraid I'll find when I get there.

[ QUOTE ]
You will certainly find more pots contested 2 way and 3 way at the higher limits. Why not practice this skill at a shorthanded table at a reasonable limit? I've heard the 5/10 six-max games are very lucrative if played well. I'm not willing to skip this type of game. If you ever find friends who want to play live home games you are likely to be playing shorthanded.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I'm playing shorthanded against a bunch of agression nuts, then am I doing anything good for myself? The difference between those games and these is that players aren't likely doing as much thinking here as they are there. I could be wrong, having never played at that level, but that's what I strongly suspect.

I'm fine playing short handed at a full table. The difference is an entire mentality. When a full table gets short, most players don't change their strategy much, which is to my advantage. But at a short handed table, the whole game is played differently. I don't think that playing a short handed table and playing short handed are that closely related (at these levels, anyway).

[droolie]

[ QUOTE ]


If I'm playing shorthanded against a bunch of agression nuts, then am I doing anything good for myself?

[/ QUOTE ]

What kind of players do you think you'll encounter at the higher limits full tables?

My read on the SH games isn't that they are just blind aggression games, just way more aggressive in general. The SH games attract more "action" players on average but to call the game totally different is a stretch I think. You make it sound like every street will be capped on every hand. I doubt that is what you'll find.

If you have a 20 year plan how can you even ask this question? How can you not have the time to broaden your experience if you're planning on playing for that length of time? I plan on playing every kind of poker game over the next 20 years not just limit hold 'em. I believe every game I learn will make me a more rounded player and ultimately a better player at every game I play.

You sound like a smart guy who was told something that didn't jive with his plan. You have no interest in playing SH games. That is fine. Don't play them. You might not have learned that much anyways. However you really should recognize that the advice of accomplished poker players who have moved through the limits and the SH games is that SH play really helped their full ring games. I have never seen a single post saying it screwed their game up or was a big waste of time. Maybe you know they're right but just need a better explanation before you go that route. Either way the move to SH is +EV for your full ring game. Only you can figure out whether your next 20 years of limit poker are worth this 10,000 hand recommended excursion or not.

[Aaron W.]

[ QUOTE ]
You make it sound like every street will be capped on every hand. I doubt that is what you'll find...

You sound like a smart guy who was told something that didn't jive with his plan.

[/ QUOTE ]

More like I saw something that I didn't like. In a span of about 10 minutes, I saw:

1) K-high (not a missed flush draw or anything) 3-bet river
2) 22 caps preflop 4-way (out of 5)
3) 98o raising out of the blinds 3-way, pushed hard the whole way (AJ4 flop, 9 turn, K river)

Perhaps there were a couple crazy LAGs (after all, 2 = 40% of the table), so I plan to do some more observations later. But this looks to me either to be really high level poker, or really crappy poker. Since it's only $1/2, I assume it's crappy. (BTW - I also recognize that this means lucrative poker, too.)

[ QUOTE ]
You have no interest in playing SH games. That is fine.

[/ QUOTE ]

No interest in these games, anyway. I had actually planned to go over there as soon as I hit my 10k hands at 3+ BB/100 at full 1/2 (if all goes well, only another couple months away), but now I'm not so sure if I really want to do that.

In any case, thanks for your comments, I'll keep these things in mind when I get closer to the decision point.