Shorthanded Play Win Rates for Advanced/ Good players

[sdc]

[ QUOTE ]
They talk about good games they think they have the biggest advantage in,

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly,

relating this to the # of players at a table

A good player has the biggest advantage playing ____handed

I think short, they can adapt to any opponents style, and punish for mistakes...

In my opinion, limit shorthanded minimizes luck when compared to fuller games

[Glenn]

Well it depends on where their skills lie. The players who make the most money are the players who are competant at short and full, and choose the best games and spots for themselves. An expert who plays one good game heads up all of the time will make more than an expert who plays one full game. However, there aren't always good games, and you can play more full than short online. Good games are more important than types of games, and being good in all spots with good game selection is better than being an expert in just one spot.

[sdc]

well put
thanks
totally agree

[ike]

I think bk is talking about the phenomenon of the player who is good enough at poker to be winning or at least break even but insists on playing far too many hands and all his good postflop play can't compensate for this one mistake. While there are a few players like this in the mid-limits, they seem to be everywhere once you get to 100/200 and higher (not that I have a ton of experience at those stakes).

[bicyclekick]

[ QUOTE ]
I think bk is talking about the phenomenon of the player who is good enough at poker to be winning or at least break even but insists on playing far too many hands and all his good postflop play can't compensate for this one mistake. While there are a few players like this in the mid-limits, they seem to be everywhere once you get to 100/200 and higher (not that I have a ton of experience at those stakes).

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Thanks for explaining that better than I could.

There are quite a few 100/200-300/600 players taht are losing players at a 6 handed table or more yet large winners in a 2 or 3 handed game. They just raise too much too early and play too many hands at 6 handed. Yet they play very tough post-flop and aren't hurt by raising too much when it's hu or 3 handed.

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does it matter what the best players win? What makes you assume that when you play NL you are going to be one of the best players? Why only assume that you can be a mediocre player? All that matters is what YOU win. Everyone I know who has played professionally or seriously semi-pro (mid-high limit players who make 100k+) for a long time doesn't talk about win rates. They talk about good games they think they have the biggest advantage in, good ways to play hands, and good reads. Two numbers matter to them: money at the beginning of the year and money at the end of the year. This whole BB/100 infatuation is a construction of 8-tabling 2/4 players who want poker to be a set of rules they memorize as opposed to a dynamic, constantly changing game. Sure, eventually you get an idea of how much you can win in certain situations, and what your best situations are. However, it varies so much from person to person, and even from day to day, that constantly talking about it is just trying to oversimplify poker because not knowing what will happen tomorrow is scary. That's why it's gambling, and if you can't deal with that, then you will never be a great player.

[/ QUOTE ]

i just read this and the OP's response to you glenn.

[ QUOTE ]
Exactly,

relating this to the # of players at a table

A good player has the biggest advantage playing ____handed

I think short, they can adapt to any opponents style, and punish for mistakes...

In my opinion, limit shorthanded minimizes luck when compared to fuller games


[/ QUOTE ]


OP is still insisting on clarification. a good player has the biggest advantage ... when he or she concentrates on the elements that are determinants of a relatively higher level of expectation. not on the results of somebody else's play. now your own past play is good to review in comparison for the purpose of contuing education, but mulling over results like st.dev (note i say mulling over. quickly thinking about what affects it has etc..and not spending a great deal of time drawing statements like the OPs) is not as productive as the studying.

i dont know if that made sense or not but being complete here would take too long to type.

your post (glenn) should be reentered and "stickied" on the top of the forum view for mid/high.

i know i still think of results and compare etc...talking to poker buddies always consists of "how are ya running?" not, "how have your games been?" or "how has your game been?"... james said something very similar to me back in february or march...i dont know if he ever posted about it but this (glenn's post) sums it up well if i remember correctly.

-Barron

[DcifrThs]

[ QUOTE ]

Trying to establish the success rate of a good player playing based on the # of players seated at a table

[/ QUOTE ]

uh, why?

-Barron

[Glenn]

"but mulling over results like st.dev (note i say mulling over. quickly thinking about what affects it has etc..and not spending a great deal of time drawing statements like the OPs) is not as productive as the studying."

This is good stuff.

"your post (glenn) should be reentered and "stickied" on the top of the forum view for mid/high."

As should everything I say. Also, when will the statue be done? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

"i know i still think of results and compare etc...talking to poker buddies always consists of "how are ya running?" not, "how have your games been?" or "how has your game been?"

Well I simplified a little, obviously. 40% of it is win bragging or loss whining. But that's more just keeping ourselves sane than trying to make more money. 30 percent of it is copying a hand history into AIM and typing "gay" after it. 15 percent is did I play this ok? 5% is talking about how the games are at various places. 10% is talking about the nonpoker drama in our sad, SAD lives.

My point was really that we don't harp on win rate, we make our judgements on what to play based on experience and intuition. Except when we play higher when we base it on how drunk we are, how depressed we are about something else, or how much we are stuck. Obviously we do have a general idea of what is reasonable, and we can work off each other's information, but we also know each others games so it's easy to compare ourselves. For instance if J_V is beating a game for a good amount, I know I can easily kill it. The consideration though isn't trying to pinpoint a prediction of how much we will win. It's choosing correctly between games where we win some, more, and most.

[Ulysses]

[ QUOTE ]
For instance if J_V is beating a game for a good amount, I know I can easily kill it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who couldn't?

[YoureToast]

You're missing my point, but thats ok.