6 Handed 5/10 Tables on Party?

[Fitz]

I've been beating the 3/6 game at party for about 2 1/2 big bets an hour. I've played full ring games at 5/10; I've done okay there, but I don't have specific stats for that level. I've recently spent a little time at the 6 player 5/10 tables and I've done extremely well. These games seem very soft to me. I wanted to get the opinions of the other players here and see what they think of these games.

Thanks,

[Robk]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been beating the 3/6 game at party for about 2 1/2 big bets an hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not to pick on you, but every time someone posts something like this they never say for how long, or for how many hands. If you've beaten the 3-6 for 70,000 hands, you are probably ready to move up. If it's been for 7,000 hands you might not be ready.

[ QUOTE ]
These games seem very soft to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are very beatable if you're a good player. If you have little shorthanded experience you're better off playing 1-2 short to get your feet wet, or moving into the 5-10 ring.

[benping16]

the 5-10 short games are fantastic

[squiffy]

Excellent point Rob.

Sometimes I would ask my college roommate about a math problem or physics problem. He would often say, oh that's trivial. Oh, that's easy. But he graduated summa cum laude in math, went to Harvard Medical School, and now earns over $300K per year as an anesthesiologist.

It was an easy problem for him. Not easy for me. Probably not easy for the average bear.

Once I asked another friend if it was a difficult or long bike ride from one town to another. About 20 miles. He said it was easy. I went along with him and nearly died. I don't exercise much.

My friend, it turns out, bikes all the time, and routinely does 200 mile rides. So 20 miles was nothing to him.

For an anonymous poster to say a particular game at a particular place is soft, without posting any specific examples of hands, without mentioning the table limits and other details you listed, renders the communication virtually meaningless.

[ElSapo]

Read the "Playing Online for a Living" thread in the General forum. The most recent one has an interesting part about 5/10 SH games...

Me, I find the SH games at Party like crack...I swore off a while back b/c I have no experience or understanding of SH play. Others find them amazingly profitable.

[Bokonon]

After around 160 hours I'm beating them for around 3.5BB/hour, 21BB SD. How that compares to others I do not know. (How about it, guys?) I *do* know that it's tough as hell to determine how well one is doing until one's played a ton of hours, because the swings can be so big. I've had 100BB sessions going both ways (happily more going up than down).

After about 60 hours I was at around 6BB/hour, and thought I was 10 Feet Tall and Bulletproof. The next 70 or 80 hours I played without showing much of a profit, if any at all. Whether it was because I was trying to be "trickier" or more aggressive that I did worse, or just bad luck, I do not know -- I've only been playing poker (online or otherwise) for three or four months. I'm back to my winning ways the last 10 or 20 hours though.

I have the strong sense that within a year's time I can consistently beat the 5/10 Party game for 5BB/hour, assuming that I continue to be picky about table selection (+$60 avg pot, minimum) and don't go all tilty. And learn how to change my playing style based on the table character, of course! I don't know if that's true or not, but I'm going for it. To be honest if I stay at 3.5BB/hour for the next year I'll be content, but you can dream, right?

[Fitz]

No offense taken. I should have added that in the original post. I have logged ~ 58,000 hands at Party 3/6; it works out to about 360 hours so far. Prior to that, I logged almost 2000 hours at Paradise primarily 2/4 where my win rate was approximately 1 1/2 big bets an hour. I have no doubt that I can beat the games I play, and I've done ok the times I've stepped up to the 5/10 full tables. I have not had a ton of short handed experience; I basically loosen my starting slightly then play as I normally play a full game.

Thanks

[goodguy_1]

Are you playing just one table or two?

For one table 3.50 BB per hour is sweet for 2 tables that average is very good also but on 160 hours thats really a small sample size.I think you need a minimum of 500-1000 hours..Robk's idea of 70,000 hands is even better thats about 1200 hours in a full game but about 700 in 6MaX's.

Do you play one or two tables?
If just one thats a great hourly earn.

uuhh 5BB an hour playing just one table..dont think so..matter a fact no friigin way is my thought but maybe I'm off base here.

I think the best short players on Party are making more than 5BB an hour at 2 or 3 tables..it could be considerably more maybe even 7BB-9BB an hour IF they can play 3 tables well and are selective ...1 table ..no way.

I can make 6 bigbets an hour in the ring games I play but I play 3 full games.If I play the same limit short I need to drop a table and at those games I am making a about 2BB's -just a little bit better than my full game earn (1.94bb/hr full vs 2.00bb/hr short)..so it's like 5.8 BB's an hour on 3 full games or 4.00 BB's an hour at 2 short .
tables

regretably I cant play more than 2 short tables and my short earn should be higher comparatively to my ring game earn..but thats improving..

Check back in another 500 hours!!!

[Bokonon]

I occasionally play two tables at once, if I'm certain that I can handle it (er, usually), and yes, that's 3.5BB/hour per table. According to Mr. Pokertracker, at least, and I trust him! (I'm 99% sure that if you play two tables at once, Pokertracker treats them as separate sessions).

The reason I say that 5BB/hour is possible on those tables is that I'm averaging 3.5BB/hour and I suck. At the very least, I can identify a dumb mistake I make every hour that's worth at least 1BB. So I think that ~5BB/hour (remember there are 100 hands/hour, so this is like a rate of 3BB/hour playing a full ring game online, 60 hands/hour, or 1.5BB/hour playing in a B&M, 30 hands/hour) is well within reach. My guess is that the better folks on here could do it in their sleep. Tough to tell, though, because you really do need hundreds of hours of play before you can get a handle on exactly how well you're beating the game.

[goodguy_1]

check out my post I edited it while you replied

yep I am sure some allstar short players that are playing 2 or 3 tables are making 7BB-9BB's an hour.!!

[Ulysses]

I think 3.5BB/hr/table is an unrealistic long-term goal. 5BB/hr/table seems highly unlikely. I doubt there are many players making > 3BB/hr/table in these games.

You mentioned that you've had multiple +/- 100BB swings. You also stated that you had a 70-80 hr streak where you broke even. So, let's take a look at a very possible hypothetical situation. You're now at 160hrs w/ about 560BB in winnings. Over the next 20 hrs you win 2BB/hr, taking you to 600BB. Then you run into 3 horrible -100BB losses in your next 20 hrs. Boom, down to 300BB at 200hrs, 1.5BB/hr.

This might not be the likeliest scenario for you, but it's a very possible one. As you're aware, the swings at these shorthanded tables are very high. I'd be wary of reading too much from your results so far.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
yep I am sure some allstar short players that are playing 2 or 3 tables are making 7BB-9BB's an hour.!!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is a reasonable range for the top players in these games, but I'm sure it's a very, very small number of players.

[Bokonon]

[ QUOTE ]
I think 3.5BB/hr/table is an unrealistic long-term goal. 5BB/hr/table seems highly unlikely. I doubt there are many players making > 3BB/hr/table in these games.

You mentioned that you've had multiple +/- 100BB swings. You also stated that you had a 70-80 hr streak where you broke even. So, let's take a look at a very possible hypothetical situation. You're now at 160hrs w/ about 560BB in winnings. Over the next 20 hrs you win 2BB/hr, taking you to 600BB. Then you run into 3 horrible -100BB losses in your next 20 hrs. Boom, down to 300BB at 200hrs, 1.5BB/hr.

This might not be the likeliest scenario for you, but it's a very possible one. As you're aware, the swings at these shorthanded tables are very high. I'd be wary of reading too much from your results so far.

[/ QUOTE ]

First let me agree with you on the latter point -- no way my results are complete enough to say with any degree of confidence that I'm a +3BB/hour player. Heck, I need to do the calculation, but I'm not completely sure I've got enough evidence technically to say with 95% certainty I'm a +EV player.

However, I have to disagree about +3BB/hour being such a stretch for any but the most accomplished shorthanded players. In a shorthanded game you're playing 100 hands/hour. I think it's generally agreed that a good -- not stupendous, merely "good" to "very good" -- online player can make 2BB/hour playing the full ring games, if not a little more. Well, that's 60hands/hour. Ignoring the fact that in a shorthanded environment you're actually *in* more hands, and so good play gives you more of an edge, that still translates to 3.5BB/hour at 100hands/hour.

What's wrong with my logic here? I also think there's more goofy bad play in shorthanded games, but that's more a matter of opinion.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it's generally agreed that a good -- not stupendous, merely "good" to "very good" -- online player can make 2BB/hour playing the full ring games, if not a little more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I'm not sure how true that really is, especially once you get to 10/20 and above.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that's 60hands/hour. Ignoring the fact that in a shorthanded environment you're actually *in* more hands, and so good play gives you more of an edge, that still translates to 3.5BB/hour at 100hands/hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't translate linearly unless your shorthanded opponents really suck. How many solid players are you usually facing in a full game? What percentage of your opponents is that? Consider the fact that maniacs often have a game that is fairly reasonable shorthanded. So, a 6-handed game with 1 or 2 good players and 1 or 2 maniacs is actually a pretty tough game to beat. That's not an unusual lineup to find.

[ QUOTE ]
I also think there's more goofy bad play in shorthanded games, but that's more a matter of opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

There's definitely more crazy looking play in the shorthanded games. Sometimes it's bad. Sometimes it's not.

[kiddo]

hi,

Is a big average pot really a good meassure for a fishy table?

You want it to be loose and weak.

Loose=big pot.
Weak=small pot.

[Bokonon]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, that's 60hands/hour. Ignoring the fact that in a shorthanded environment you're actually *in* more hands, and so good play gives you more of an edge, that still translates to 3.5BB/hour at 100hands/hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't translate linearly unless your shorthanded opponents really suck. How many solid players are you usually facing in a full game? What percentage of your opponents is that? Consider the fact that maniacs often have a game that is fairly reasonable shorthanded. So, a 6-handed game with 1 or 2 good players and 1 or 2 maniacs is actually a pretty tough game to beat. That's not an unusual lineup to find.


[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, of course it translates linearly -- a full ring player making 2BB/hour (not unreasonable for limits lower than 10/20 on Party Poker) will make about 3.5BB every 100 hands, period.

The question is whether the 3.5BB/100 hands a good player can expect in a full ring game is a reasonable expectation for a shorthanded game -- specifically the 5/10 at Party Poker.

Well, this entire thread started out by someone saying that the shorthanded 5/10 tables seemed soft. A bunch of people chimed in to agree -- I didn't see ONE person disagree. (Though I did point out that it's tough to guage softness because of the tremendous swings one can get, of course.)

So the question comes down to whether opponents in a Party 5/10 shorthanded game suck more or less than opponents in a (let's say) 5/10 or 3/6 full ring game on Party. If they're the same overall quality, controlling for the different character of the game, then 3.5BB/hour is a perfectly reasonable expectation. If the games are actually "tough" overall, then it's not.

While the shorthanded games may be trickier and more maniac-friendly, I really don't think they're tougher. And I haven't read *anyone* on these boards suggest that they're tougher. But I admit I could be wrong.

(Addendum to previous email -- I did just (barely) confirm that I'm likely a Winning Player at Party SH. Across the 5/10 and 10/20 games (only played about 15 hours of the latter), I've played 144 hours, +BB/hour = 3.98, SD=21.25, putting my 95%CI just in the plus zone.)

[Bokonon]

[ QUOTE ]
hi,

Is a big average pot really a good meassure for a fishy table?

You want it to be loose and weak.

Loose=big pot.
Weak=small pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the best I have to go by before I sit down. The majority of the time I sit down at a table like that the pot's that big not because of a bunch of tight-aggressive play, but because at least two people are seeing the flop over 50% of the time.

Then it's just a matter of seeing who thinks he's Tricky (loose-aggressive) and who just doesn't know better (loose-passive), and modifying one's game against those players appropriately.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, of course it translates linearly -- a full ring player making 2BB/hour (not unreasonable for limits lower than 10/20 on Party Poker) will make about 3.5BB every 100 hands, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's incorrect. You are muddling your points. Look at your post that I was responding to. In your example, the 60 hands/hr was a full game and the 100 hands/hr was a shorthanded game. Saying that translates linearly is like saying the following is accurate: "A player who makes $12/hr in a 3/6 game will make $400/hr in a 100/200 game."

[ QUOTE ]
So the question comes down to whether opponents in a Party 5/10 shorthanded game suck more or less than opponents in a (let's say) 5/10 or 3/6 full ring game on Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the question is what your expected earn is in these games. Suckiness of opponents is just one factor. Composition of the game is a bigger factor. Just one good player and one maniac in the game can easily make the game unprofitable for you if you make just a few mistakes, as the effects of mistakes is magnified in uber-aggressive shorthanded games.

[ QUOTE ]
controlling for the different character of the game

[/ QUOTE ]

That one simple phrase is really the main point here. I think you're way underestimating the importance of that.

[ QUOTE ]
While the shorthanded games may be trickier and more maniac-friendly, I really don't think they're tougher. And I haven't read *anyone* on these boards suggest that they're tougher. But I admit I could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, here you go. For most players on this forum, I believe the shorthanded games will be less profitable and higher variance than the full games.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. I was just pointing out what I thought were some unrealistic expectations you had based on a lot of successful shorthanded and mid-limit experience I have. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. Whatever.

Anyway, what time do you usually play? Is your Party ID the same? Sounds like the only way to find out who's right is for me to jump into some of these games with you.

[Bokonon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First of all, of course it translates linearly -- a full ring player making 2BB/hour (not unreasonable for limits lower than 10/20 on Party Poker) will make about 3.5BB every 100 hands, period.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's incorrect. You are muddling your points. Look at your post that I was responding to. In your example, the 60 hands/hr was a full game and the 100 hands/hr was a shorthanded game. Saying that translates linearly is like saying the following is accurate: "A player who makes $12/hr in a 3/6 game will make $400/hr in a 100/200 game."


[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Shees. You know I never said that. You were the one that used the word "linear" -- obviously that word can't apply to moving from a ring game to a shorthanded game -- those are qualitatively different. It was always meant to apply to hands/hour. If at a given limit in a given game you make X/60 hands, you'll make almost 2X/100 hands.

Anytime anyone here says they make 2BB/hour in a ring game online, people say "good job" -- but if you say you make 3.5BB/hour shorthanded, they act like you said you just ran a 4-minute mile. But it's the same BB/100 hands. Sorry, but that bugs me.

I would agree (duh) that you can't linearly extrapolate across limits.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
So the question comes down to whether opponents in a Party 5/10 shorthanded game suck more or less than opponents in a (let's say) 5/10 or 3/6 full ring game on Party.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, the question is what your expected earn is in these games. Suckiness of opponents is just one factor. Composition of the game is a bigger factor. Just one good player and one maniac in the game can easily make the game unprofitable for you if you make just a few mistakes, as the effects of mistakes is magnified in uber-aggressive shorthanded games.

[ QUOTE ]
controlling for the different character of the game

[/ QUOTE ]

That one simple phrase is really the main point here. I think you're way underestimating the importance of that.

[ QUOTE ]
While the shorthanded games may be trickier and more maniac-friendly, I really don't think they're tougher. And I haven't read *anyone* on these boards suggest that they're tougher. But I admit I could be wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, here you go. For most players on this forum, I believe the shorthanded games will be less profitable and higher variance than the full games.


[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]

Well it has to go both ways -- if mistakes punish you more than in a ring game, then good play has to reward you more. I mean, for every bad play someone makes, someone's gaining. Everyone at the table can't be losing. (Ok, with rake, they can. But you get my point.)

Incidentally, if I find myself at an uber-aggressive 5/10 table I almost always just get up and leave. I know my strengths . . . and weaknesses.

And I agree that in the short term for most players on this forum, the SH games would be less profitable. But after they learned to adjust I don't know that that's still be the case. I really can't say -- but I will say that you *are* the first person I've seen post that.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. I was just pointing out what I thought were some unrealistic expectations you had based on a lot of successful shorthanded and mid-limit experience I have. Maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong. Whatever.
Anyway, what time do you usually play? Is your Party ID the same? Sounds like the only way to find out who's right is for me to jump into some of these games with you.

[/ QUOTE ]
I really don't want this to devolve into a pissing contest, because I'm quite sure it's one that I'll lose /images/graemlins/laugh.gif. If you say that a merely "good" online player's edge in 5/10 Party SH may be only 1BB/50-60 hands, or ~2BB/hour, then, well, you may very well be right, and I've been a little on the lucky side. Barring any nasty anti-internet-gambling legislation I should have a good 1000 hours of hands available for stats in a year or so. I'll make sure to post my results!

As far as watching me play, or, god forbid, playing *against* me, you wish /images/graemlins/tongue.gif. I'll post some hand histories though -- been REALLY meaning to do that so I can get input on my game -- and if some night you want to wrangle some other 2+2'ers together for some 0.50/1 or 1/2 6-handed HE at Party, I'm game!

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
Shees. You know I never said that. You were the one that used the word "linear" -- obviously that word can't apply to moving from a ring game to a shorthanded game -- those are qualitatively different. It was always meant to apply to hands/hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, if that's what you meant. I was just responding to this paragraph of yours:

[ QUOTE ]
In a shorthanded game you're playing 100 hands/hour. I think it's generally agreed that a good -- not stupendous, merely "good" to "very good" -- online player can make 2BB/hour playing the full ring games, if not a little more. Well, that's 60hands/hour. Ignoring the fact that in a shorthanded environment you're actually *in* more hands, and so good play gives you more of an edge, that still translates to 3.5BB/hour at 100hands/hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

To me that sure seemed like you were linearly extrapolating from full game expectation to derive a shorthanded game expectation. If I misunderstood, my mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
Anytime anyone here says they make 2BB/hour in a ring game online, people say "good job" -- but if you say you make 3.5BB/hour shorthanded, they act like you said you just ran a 4-minute mile. But it's the same BB/100 hands. Sorry, but that bugs me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I see your point here, but you seem to be ignoring my points regarding your typical opponents and their effect on the game. Limon's essay (in Pot/No-Limit) regarding shorthanded games also has some good points in this regard. You didn't answer my question re: the percentage of good players you'll face in a full ring game. When you take into account the fact that maniacs are often playing much closer to correct in shorthanded games, your edge over the field will often be far less unless you're a really skilled shorthanded player.

Full-game opponents: 1 excellent player, 2 OK players, 4 loose calling stations, 1 maniacs, 1 loose aggressive

SH game opponents: 1 excellent player, 1 maniac, 1 OK player, 1 loose aggressive, 1 loose calling station

I think these are fairly typical lineups. I think the first lineup is significantly more profitable for most solid players on this forum.

[ QUOTE ]
Well it has to go both ways -- if mistakes punish you more than in a ring game, then good play has to reward you more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. I also agree that an expert shorthanded player will make more in a SH game for that reason. I just don't think very many people fit into the category.

[ QUOTE ]
As far as watching me play, or, god forbid, playing *against* me, you wish /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aw, come on. You know you want me to play in your games. /images/graemlins/grin.gif PM me your Party ID and let me know when you'll be playing.

[Bokonon]

[ QUOTE ]

To me that sure seemed like you were linearly extrapolating from full game expectation to derive a shorthanded game expectation. If I misunderstood, my mistake.

. . .

I see your point here, but you seem to be ignoring my points regarding your typical opponents and their effect on the game. Limon's essay (in Pot/No-Limit) regarding shorthanded games also has some good points in this regard. You didn't answer my question re: the percentage of good players you'll face in a full ring game. When you take into account the fact that maniacs are often playing much closer to correct in shorthanded games, your edge over the field will often be far less unless you're a really skilled shorthanded player.


[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough -- I did extrapolate to the extent that I saw no reason to doubt that if a good ring player can make 3.5BB/100hands 10-handed, he could make (after making appropriate adjustments to his game) 3.5BB/100hands 6-handed. Maybe more. I've been attacked before for such a claim, but the attack had much more to do with the supposedly elusive 4-5BB/hour figure than the difference between SH and 10-handed games.

I do understand your point though -- you're saying that the games really *are* quite different and that all but an expert player's edge will probably go down. I suppose that's possible.

Re Limon and maniacs and such, though, I'd point out:

1) Limon doesn't consider 6-handed "shorthanded".
2) More importantly, while maniacs will do better shorthanded, there are players that will do worse. Full ring-players moving to shorthanded will do worse. Weak-tight players will do worse. Players will no concept of pot-odds will do worse, as their odds to call to the river with any draw will on average be worse than in a full game. I think it tends to balance out unless you're playing in very aggressive games all the time (i.e., more maniacs, fewer or no weak-tight/loose passive players). Maybe our disagreement stems from you playing in those kinds of games regularly -- I try to avoid them unless I know I'm going to be dealt the nuts /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
As far as watching me play, or, god forbid, playing *against* me, you wish /images/graemlins/tongue.gif.

[/ QUOTE ]

Aw, come on. You know you want me to play in your games. /images/graemlins/grin.gif PM me your Party ID and let me know when you'll be playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Give me a few more months to polish my game /images/graemlins/smile.gif. You know I'm a noob! Incidentally I'm about to post a hand to this forum -- be interested in your reply.