What do you think is better?

[Mikey]

Assume a 5 person short handed game.

Is it better to come in every single time with a raise rather than call?

Is it more profitable to limp UTG with KJ, QT, KT, QJ, A9. or is it better to bring it in for a raise.


Also do you think that calling with these hands is good if you are in the SB and the button limps rather than raising. I figure if you raise you don't gain that much value because you are out of position and the hand becomes harder to play if you don't flop a pair or a decent draw.

What is your take on this?

I like to raise or fold with offsuit big cards/Ax. However, I may fold KT, QT and A9 utg in semi-tough five-handed games.

The thing about short-handed games (I presume you are talking about online) is that they are so loose-aggressive that I find the best way to beat the games are by playing calm, solid poker. Also remember that the blinds are a LOT more prone to defending short-handed, which is actually another reason to pass on marginal hands such as A9 and KT up front.

lars

[Jimbo]

Mikey,

If the only times you ever limped in a 5 handed game were the two blinds and you either raised or folded every other time you entered the pot you would be playing close to optimally no matter what your starting hand requirements are just so they are not overly tight.

[Mason Malmuth]

In my opinion, Jimbo has it just about right for hold 'em. See the short handed section in HPFAP for more discussion including when it might sometimes be correct to call when first in.

By the way, if you were playing short handed stud, it might be correct to limp in a little more often. I'll let others elaborate on this.

MM

[hutz]

I, too, take the approach Jimbo articulated. I consistently either raise or fold outside the blinds preflop (and do the same in the SB if it's folded around to me. Sure, you might only collect the blinds with monster hands once in awhile with this approach, but you also drive out better aces and kings when you're raising with ATo, etc., so it likely balances out in the end while you get the extra benefit of taking control of the hand. This may be too tight, but online UTG I will generally muck the hands you listed unless the texture of the table is allowing me to steal the blinds an above-average amount of the time. Hope this helps.

[Pot-A]

I can only speak from my own experience. For me it has been far more profitable to limp with all but the strongest hands. I've been playing a lot of short-handed (4 or 5 player) 15-30 hold'em lately, and I find most of my profit comes from trapping pre-flop raisers who overplay their hands after the flop. Limping more allows me to see more flops cheaply, and it doesn't hurt as much to toss it on the flop if I miss.

I tried the more agressive pre-flop style in the past and got crushed by the local pros on almost every occasion. With this style I've found short handed games to be more profitable than full games.

[AceHigh]

Would you limp in a more in a loose game? Say if you knew a raise was likely to get 2 callers would you limp with you smaller suited connectors?

I think raise or fold would work better in tighter games, what do you think?

As a follow up, if you are playing in a short-handed game and you notice someone using this strategy, do you think it is best three-bet with the same hands, if you have a shot at getting heads-up. I often find myself doing this, and it has a couple of benefits IMO. First, many times you can win the pot when your opponent doesn't make his hand, not when you make yours. Second, with A(T+), I often feel that I have the best hand. Third, once people are on to you, you can settle back, wait for a big-hand, and you are more likely to be paid off. Only time this has really hurt me, was when my opponents ran into big-hands, and I thought they were just trying to counter my aggression.

Thanks,
Huh?

[CreamPuff]

do you think it is best to three-bet with the same hands?

No..You need a better hand than his avg. to reraise.
The blinds should create some dead money (if all fold), but dont get
to carried away.

[John Biggs]

I'm interested in Mason's comment that in short-handed stud you would limp more than in ditto hold'em. My guess is that it's because the antes are typically smaller than the equivalent blinds in hold'em, but that's just a guess. Also, in stud you have an additional street to see if your hand develops before the big bet comes into play, as compared to hold'em--but I don't know if that's a factor.

I would be particularly interested in hearing theories of short-handed stud play, since I suspect it too relies less on constantly raising the bring-in than the equivalent play in hold'em of the small blind raising the big blind--and for the same reason.

[Mason Malmuth]

I think you missed the most important aspect, and that is your upcard. With a small upcard, and little in the pot because of the reduced antes, you may be better off limping a little more than you would in hold 'em.

MM

[John Biggs]

You're right, I forgot about the door card in stud vs. hold'em--obviously that has an impact, though I am too inexperienced in short-handed stud to be able to grok it.

I do note that SCSFAP seems to reinforce my initial point. See page 170: "Unlike hold'em, short-handed stud doesn't require that much change in your strategy ... The reason is because, although on average it takes less of a hand to win, there is less money in the pot in antes, so if you try to steal the antes too often your risk versus reward ratio changes. Compare this to hold'em where the amount of money in the pot stays constant due to the blind structure that hold'em employs."

I actually looked this up after my initial post--I apologize for that and don't mean to be pedantic or argumentive. I'd still like to know more on this subject, but it seems the majority of the posts in this section are on hold'em, not stud. Not sure why that would be aside from the popularity of hold'em in general.