Short Handed with John Henigan (Flakes)

#1 10-14-2002, 04:26 PM

I was playing in a 30-60 game at the Taj this weekend when John Henigan sat down to my left. Knowing that he usually plays 3000-6000 and not 30-60 I knew the game had just gotten considerably worse. He played for about a half hour until a 75 stud game opened up. My question for all of you is what separates a player who consistantly beats 30-60 and 50-100 games from a world class player such as Henigan. I am assuming I will see a lot of things like hand reading, understanding opponents, thinking on all multiple levels etc, but these are all things players who beat 50-100 games do well. But as far as being able to beat these extremely high limits, what separates these players? In my own opinion it seems one can only play limit poker so well. Most of the decisions become almost mechanical in nature, and there is far far less to the game as there is in a no limit poker game. I was thinking about how much reading oppenents body language cam into play. Any thoughts?

mikelow · #2 10-14-2002, 05:47 PM

Where is 3000-6000 spread? You'll need to win the lottery to have the bankroll for that game.

Eric P · #3 10-14-2002, 06:36 PM

I'm pretty sure the difference comes in one main place:
Bankroll. Obviously you should play a little differently (i.e. saving bets, not that you shouldn't be doing it anyway, but you could probably stand to not make at least one or two calls when all the cards are out) but in general most people can not scrap up 50 big bets to sit down at a stud table if a bet is six grand.

Boris · #4 10-14-2002, 07:19 PM

Weirderman and Negreanu had big debate about this on RGP. one says the only difference is bankroll and the other says that the super high limit players are on a different plane and that the 30-60 expert would get crushed. In Super/System, Brunson claims the toughest players are in the middling limits.

If I could afford to play 3000-6000 I'd probably just play 30-60 instead and throw a party by being a loose-aggressive maniac. IMO, that style of poker is the most fun.

#5 10-14-2002, 08:30 PM

I saw John Hennigan last night at the Bellagio sitting in a shorthanded game with lots of purple ($500) chips. Are you sure you saw him this weekend at the Taj in Atlantic City?

There is $2000-$4000 mixed game that is frequently spread at the Bellagio which includes Doyle Brunson, Chip Reese, Jennifer Harmon, and others. I don't believe John Hennigan plays quite this high but I am not sure.

Jim Brier · #6 10-14-2002, 08:31 PM

(n/t)

snakehead · #7 10-14-2002, 08:39 PM

I've had a few converstions about this. if I could afford to play in the 1000-2000 blind pot limit, would I? I used to say no, poker isn't that much fun.

but to be truthful, I'd be there.

snakehead · #8 10-14-2002, 08:41 PM

what limit do you think he was playing with $500 chips?

budman · #9 10-14-2002, 09:05 PM

How did John do in your game? I had an experience recently where a player who plays 200-400 and 300-600 was waiting for a game and sat in our 10-20 game. He played terribly! He would go to the river with gut shot draws, bottom pair, etc.

I think that playing at such high levels desensitizes players to small bets and makes it hard for them to play well.

Boris · #10 10-14-2002, 09:27 PM

IME playing short handed you see more nasty suckouts than what you might expect because alot of times any old pair or even a high card will win the pot. So instead of having just a gut shot, you also have a draw to any pair. plus add in the times you might be able to bluff the guy out. Now playing a gutshot in a short handed pot isn't such a bad idea.

Of course at 10-20, playing this way is pretty stupid because there is such a strong correlation between betting patterns and hand strength.