Stork
12-27-2004, 02:39 AM
(crossposted in General Texas Hold'em Forum)
In general, which limit holdem game is more profitable? Personally, I find short-handed play much more fun because you're in more hands, and short-handed play demands more thinking, hand reading, and tricky play.
Ed Miller says that the most common mistake low limit holdem players make (and I play low limit) is playing too many hands and going to far with them. In short handed, playing too many hands is not as bad a mistake, because there are less hands out there, which means good players play more hands anyways. But going too far with hands is an error that is ripped open in short-handed play because the pots are smaller, making loose-passive play an even bigger mistake. In full ring games, the opposite is true. Playing too many hands is worse because at a full table, you have to play tighter preflop because of all the possible hands out there. Conversely, going too far with hands, while still an error, is not as bad in a full game because the pots tend to be much bigger, giving good and bad players alike better drawing/continuing odds in general. Also, hand reading is not as important because the pot size helps justify loose calls more so than in short handed games, meaning that bad players in short-handed games are much more prone to making errors than those same players in full games. Another factor to consider is the rake, which will generally be a higher percent of the pot in short-handed games than in full ring games.
So what do people find more profitable/ like better, and why?
In general, which limit holdem game is more profitable? Personally, I find short-handed play much more fun because you're in more hands, and short-handed play demands more thinking, hand reading, and tricky play.
Ed Miller says that the most common mistake low limit holdem players make (and I play low limit) is playing too many hands and going to far with them. In short handed, playing too many hands is not as bad a mistake, because there are less hands out there, which means good players play more hands anyways. But going too far with hands is an error that is ripped open in short-handed play because the pots are smaller, making loose-passive play an even bigger mistake. In full ring games, the opposite is true. Playing too many hands is worse because at a full table, you have to play tighter preflop because of all the possible hands out there. Conversely, going too far with hands, while still an error, is not as bad in a full game because the pots tend to be much bigger, giving good and bad players alike better drawing/continuing odds in general. Also, hand reading is not as important because the pot size helps justify loose calls more so than in short handed games, meaning that bad players in short-handed games are much more prone to making errors than those same players in full games. Another factor to consider is the rake, which will generally be a higher percent of the pot in short-handed games than in full ring games.
So what do people find more profitable/ like better, and why?