do lousy players play better shorthanded??? by accident???

just wondering about the theory that some loose players have better starting plays in shorthanded, just because the optimal shorthanded hand selection is closer to their loose 10 handed hand selection (all of this pre-flop, or is that obvious?)

my thought is that it's somewhat true, but i think alot loosen up even more for shorthanded (see 80% preflop % in some 5 person games - assume 40% from small and big blind, and then 40% (out of 60%) from first three positions, so first 3 would be playing 66.6%.

also,

loose players usually don't have the aggression, don't play position or read their opponents (i am guilty of not reading opponents, and bottomline i think that's a huge part of harrington and king yao books i.e. the #'s can only take you so far).

any thoughts if loose players play decent shorthanded somewhat by accident??

sorry, i was in wrong forum.... not sure how to move it, i probably can't

[tripdad]

i don't think you are in the wrong forumn, because your question is theoretical and not specifically SH strategy related.

here are my thoughts on your question. loose players do not play decent, either on purpose or by accident, in short handed games any more so than in full games. the fact that more hands as a percentage need to be played or raised in short games, while true, is somewhat misleading.

let's say that you are in a full ring game, and the 1st 4 people to act in front of you fold. your range of hands that are playable and that call for an opening raise increases, no? so, let us assume that in full ring, the optimal VPIP is 20%. this could translate into a VPIP of, say, 13% VPIP from the 1st 4 positions after the blinds, and 25% VPIP from all other positions combined. if this is so, then the optimal VPIP from all positions in a 6 max game is 25%.

basically, what i am saying is that, during SH play, assume play the same range of hands as if you were in middle position of a full ring game, and the 1st 4 players folded to you.

from my SH experience, the preflop play is nothing short of pathetic in many many cases, but the percentage of good and decent post flop players is higher.

**i am no expert, and i may be completely wrong about all that i've typed.**

Loose players are just used to seeing more flops (hence the fact that they're loose).

Therefor... one can reason that it's an experience factor. Loose players will have more experience either A) completely missing the flop and having to try to take it down or B) evaluating their mediocre hands like bottom pair and/or weak flush draw.

[JacksonTens]

Yes. This is discussed in HFAP

JT /images/graemlins/spade.gif

[mmmmmbrother]

i dont think they play better shorthanded, but the added variance lets them have more and bigger winning sessions

a good player can take down a bad player no matter how many players there are. i would agree that someone that has no clue how to play would have a better chance at beating phil ivey then me though.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
a good player can take down a bad player no matter how many players there are. i would agree that someone that has no clue how to play would have a better chance at beating phil ivey then me though.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hopefully you don't really believe this...

Barron Vangor Toth
BarronVangorToth.com

[Onaflag]

[ QUOTE ]
a good player can take down a bad player no matter how many players there are. i would agree that someone that has no clue how to play would have a better chance at beating phil ivey then me though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, this is wrong and doesn't really address the OP. The OP tries to drop lousy players and loose players into the same bucket. There are more attributes to a lousy player than just looseness and a player who is just "a little loose" may not in fact be a lousy player.

So, if we separate the two and just consider loose players, then, yes, their pre-flop play may very well be unknowingly better than the average full ring TAG.

There is a whole subset of loose players with aggressive post-flop tendencies. Their full ring post-flop mistakes suddenly become more correct SH.

We're not talking maniacs here. That's another subject. I do believe, though, that the somewhat looser players especially those with aggressive behaviors can eat up your average 2+2 born and raised full ring TAG who doesn't or hasn't learned to adjust to the changed conditions shorthanded.

Disclaimer: I am only commenting because this is in the Theory forum. Had this been in the SH forum, I'd feel way underqualified to utter a word about it. I suck at SH play and know why. When the game gets SH at our local B&M around 5 or 6 am, I get up and leave unless I am convinced I can switch gears. Sometimes I can, sometimes I can't.

Onaflag.........

Good question

I remember when I saw my first 6-max table I thought that they would mistakedly play closer to optimal strategy, so I never tried it. I'm exclusivly a 10-handed NL player.

But I've heard arguments that come to the conlusion 6-max is more profitable, so I'm not sure. I reckon the time it takes a player to learn how to play winning 10-handed poker is much less than to play winning 6-handed poker, althought there might be potiential for greater earn in 6-handed if you become good enough

[Abbaddabba]

Being loose helps (or hurts less, rather) in short handed play. Being weak hurts more in short handed play.

The loose/weak opponents lose more from being suboptimally weak than they gain from being closer to optimally loose.

These are the people you want to play against, and you can probably win more per 100 hands off of them than you can off a full ring with players of comparable skill.

[ QUOTE ]
assume play the same range of hands as if you were in middle position of a full ring game, and the 1st 4 players folded to you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this due to the difference in the nature of players in full / short games. In a shorthanded game, the starting hand requirements for other players will drop, so you can still loosen up and be ahead most of the time. In a full game, if you are MP2, there are still a lot of hands that you might want to play in a shorthanded game that will not be ahead in a ring game. There are still a lot of players to act behind you. If you raise a hand like AT from MP2 in a full game and get 3-bet, you can't be comfortable. But in a SH game, you are ahead of the 3-bettor more often than in the ring game.

Hope it makes sense, maybe it doesn't.

[ QUOTE ]
I remember when I saw my first 6-max table I thought that they would mistakedly play closer to optimal strategy, so I never tried it. I'm exclusivly a 10-handed NL player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not trying to pick on you or anything, but if you don't play short-handed tournaments, how do you know what "optimal strategy" is?

Why wouldn't you play the 6-handed games? Don't know about the other sites, but sure, on UB there are typically fewer paying places. Still doesn't make it not worthwhile.

[ QUOTE ]
But I've heard arguments that come to the conlusion 6-max is more profitable, so I'm not sure. I reckon the time it takes a player to learn how to play winning 10-handed poker is much less than to play winning 6-handed poker, althought there might be potiential for greater earn in 6-handed if you become good enough

[/ QUOTE ]

I would think you would want to play a lot of 6-handed, for experience if nothing else. Even a 10-handed tournament gets down to 6 players or less eventually.

Back to the OP's point, I would agree that poor players may make SOME better plays short-handed by accident, simply because short-handed play requires one to play more hands. But IMHO, this would have to be limited mostly to the context of pre-flop play.

Regardless, I have to believe they will still make a lot of pre-flop mistakes, as well many mistakes on the subsequent card turns.

IMHO, there still isn't enough difference to make a winning player out of a losing one.

I'm not sure if the OP was referring to tournaments.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure if the OP was referring to tournaments.

[/ QUOTE ]

could be, just responding, but I think the same concepts apply

[ QUOTE ]
Not trying to pick on you or anything, but if you don't play short-handed tournaments, how do you know what "optimal strategy" is?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't. I was kind of implying that my thinking was flawed/stupid at the time.

[ QUOTE ]
Why wouldn't you play the 6-handed games? Don't know about the other sites, but sure, on UB there are typically fewer paying places. Still doesn't make it not worthwhile.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've tried it briefly, and in my limited experience, it requires much more thought and attention than 10-handed, and I'm lazy. I like easy money.

[ QUOTE ]
I would think you would want to play a lot of 6-handed, for experience if nothing else. Even a 10-handed tournament gets down to 6 players or less eventually.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't specify before, but I'm exclusivly a 10-handed NL cash game online player.