I'm never playing a full ring game again

[kurosh]

I'm up $4300 playing 10/20 and 15/30 since last night taking advantage of bad players in SH games (2-4 players). I've played maybe a total of 2 hours. I love players who can't adapt to SH games.

[Joe826]

awesome.

[TM1212]

Could this post be any more worthless?

BTW Swings in SH play are mmuch larger then in full ring. Your win rate will even out, itll be higher then full ring, but not anything near your current run. Next time post something useful!

[kurosh]

http://img8.imagevenue.com/loc292/617_NextDoorNikki_MistyAnderson_sleepover002.jpg

is that better?

[___1___]

kurosh,

Stick to that 150/300 game you were in and you'll be fine. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

___1___

[kurosh]

Haha, were you in it or did you watch me? That was a blast. I decided to take a run at it since it was all profit.

[DanS]

[ QUOTE ]
Haha, were you in it or did you watch me? That was a blast. I decided to take a run at it since it was all profit.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, wtf difference does it make if it was 'all profit'? Isn't that 3 or 4k better spent in your bankroll, letting you move up at least a limit?

Dan

[Megenoita]

Why are the swings of SH bigger than a full ring game if SH has so many more opportunities for players to make mistakes, and they make bigger ones made repeatedly?

M

[sthief09]

var·i·ance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vâr-ns, vr-)
n.

A difference between what is expected and what actually occurs.

[kurosh]

According to Jason Pohl, SH has more variance because:
[ QUOTE ]
So, there's the prospect of making a lot of money fast. But beware. The incredibly fast pace of shorthanded play is a double-edged sword. Many players complain of the very high variance of short-handed tables. On one hand, luck actually plays a smaller role in theory due to the higher number of decision opportunities per hour. To explain this phenomenon, I'll consider a case where a person is flipping a coin. If one person flips a coin only 10 times, there is a significant chance the percentages of 'heads' will vary greatly. It wouldn't be so shocking to see 60 or 70% of all flips end in 'heads' (or tails).

However, if that same person flipped a coin 100 times, the chances of 'heads' coming up 70% of the time are extremely small. The math needed to demonstrate the actual probabilities in our two scenarios is just an expansion of simple arithmetic, but too cumbersome for the purpose of this article. The point is that while luck swings to both good and bad players alike, the variance in general will be lower as more decisions are made.

If we've proven that luck is a smaller factor, why would a high variance be a normal complaint? Simply put, the game often proceeds faster than players can adjust. While conditions can change quickly in poker under any set of circumstances, the damage that can be done in shorthanded play is amplified. Let's say you are playing what is normally a winning strategy for your game. If an opponent crafts a solid strategy capitalizing on your weaknesses, you may not realize you are being outplayed for quite a few hands. The longer it takes to counter, the more money you will lose.

In other words, since your opponents have changed, the decisions you make will have negative expectations. The speed of play may mean that a lot of hands pass before you even realize what is happening. Furthermore, shorthanded play can often be very volatile and unpredictable, for reasons I will highlight in the next section and in future articles. Decisions will be closer to marginal in general than they would be in other games because even great short-handed players are forced to do a lot of educated guessing with very imperfect information.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree with it. I really think 2-3 handed has less variance when you do it right. I find weak players and take advantage of their glaring mistakes. If I'm playing against a tard who folds too much PF, my variance will be less.

[kurosh]

[ QUOTE ]

Honestly, wtf difference does it make if it was 'all profit'? Isn't that 3 or 4k better spent in your bankroll, letting you move up at least a limit?

Dan

[/ QUOTE ]

Shrug, my bankroll is >20k. The next limit I'd go to is messing around at 30/60 or 50/100. Going to 150/300 was pretty stupid but I like to gamble and losing the money doesn't mean anything. I figured I was at least 50/50 to lose it all or win a bit.

[sthief09]

you ran well. you're excited and now think you know everything. unfortunately no one cares because you're extremely irritating

[kurosh]

I never said I'm not running well. Does that make me any less of a poker player? +7500 for yesterday btw.

Yes, this was mostly a no content bragging post but also, showing a convert from full ring. SH is much better. I feel as if I'm actually playing poker instead of being a robot like in full ring.

[DCWGaming]

At first i thought the original post was a joke...
Then i read the rest of the thread.


dumb.

[Jeff W]

Meh, some people like to take shots and some people like to build their bankrolls steadily. Both are valid approaches.