Shorthanded stud

More very basic Stud questions:


I usually play Stud at Pacific at the 1/2$ tables with are good, but sometimes can simply be empty

So I log on to Party and try to find a similar seat .. but it seems that only the 6 max table are frequented ??


Does sitting 4-6 players instead of the usual 6-8 dictate a difference in your play .. ??

[BTirish]

I haven't played that much shorthanded, relatively speaking. However, 7csfap takes up this question, and Sklansky et al. say that starting hand requirements don't change that much in shorthanded play since stud is an ante game--fewer players means less money in the pot to start. You don't want to be taking it heads up against a probable bigger pair in shorthanded play anymore than you do in a ring game--in fact, you want to do so even less because there is less in the pot to start.

But, of course, a game's being shorthanded means that the raising upcard is less likely to be the pair represented. From my small pool of experience, shorthanded stud play is very read-dependent. If you can run over your opponents and steal the ante and BI consistently, do so. I think the value of information raises goes up, since people will often raise with overcards or even less.

All that being said, though, early street mistakes in shorthanded play stink just as much as in ring play. I think you have to be aggressive in the early rounds without committing yourself to pots as a significant underdog. If you're playing with a hyper-aggressive player who is not only stealing but taking all kinds of hands to the river, then just play a tight game not that different from ring play and punish his mistakes.

[preiserone]

I think Btrish covered the basics. I think you got the whole 2 page chapter from 7csfap in there.

[blumpkin22]

Nice post BT.

Thx again [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Also, be less interested in flush and straight plays. Pairs and high cards play better here.

[preiserone]

I think alot of shorthanded games allow playing the straights and flushes the same way you would in a full game. Its not rare to find a loose shorthanded game having 3-4 people to play with your drawing hands. I think you just have to pick the spots where you play them more carefully.

[MikeBandy]

[ QUOTE ]
shorthanded stud play is very read-dependent.

[/ QUOTE ]
I imagine that shorthanded poker play is very read-dependent. However, my questions don’t relate to reads. Rather than ask questions, I’ll make devil’s advocate statements.

[ QUOTE ]
starting hand requirements don't change that much in shorthanded play since stud is an ante game

[/ QUOTE ]
Intuitively, that sounds correct. However, in short-handed play the average winning hand is of a lower quality than that at a full table. Therefore, people could play more hands when short-handed. Of course, playing lower-quality hands would result in higher fluctuations.

Heads-up players would surely play more hands than in a ring game. Otherwise, the small pots they’d win wouldn’t keep up with the antes. It seems that one would play more hands two-handed than four-handed, and more hands four-handed than eight-handed. There would be a sliding, nonlinear scale.

[BTirish]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
starting hand requirements don't change that much in shorthanded play since stud is an ante game

[/ QUOTE ]
Intuitively, that sounds correct. However, in short-handed play the average winning hand is of a lower quality than that at a full table. Therefore, people could play more hands when short-handed. Of course, playing lower-quality hands would result in higher fluctuations.

Heads-up players would surely play more hands than in a ring game. Otherwise, the small pots they’d win wouldn’t keep up with the antes. It seems that one would play more hands two-handed than four-handed, and more hands four-handed than eight-handed. There would be a sliding, nonlinear scale.

[/ QUOTE ]

Standards don't change much in a short-handed game. I'm still going to be playing quality starting cards--live 3 flushes, 3 straights, and pairs that I think are the highest being played or underpairs with quality overcard kickers.

My point is that starting hand standards in stud are already relative to the 3rd street upcards. In hold 'em, your starting hand requirements are relative to your position, the number of players left to act behind you, and the action before you. In stud, your starting hand requirements are relative to your position and the number of players, as well as to the action and upcards before you and the upcards behind you.

Reads aside, I will be applying almost exactly the same standards in a short-handed game as in a full game. It's just that 10-3-10 or 9c-6s-9h is much more likely to "pass" on those standards in a short-handed game--I'm more likely to have the highest upcard or to be opening the action with what is probably the best hand. But I fold 9c-6s-9h with 2 higher upcards left to act behind me in a short-handed game just as I would in a full game. How many other players were dealt in the hand has absolutely nothing to do with the odds of either of those two players having me beat.

So you're right, you'll be playing cards of lower absolute quality more often. However, starting hand requirements in stud are based on relative quality rather than absolute quality; that's why I say that the standards don't change in short-handed play.

[MikeBandy]

Thanks for explaining that BTirish. I've played quite a bit of short-handed hold 'em, but most of the stud games I've played are at full tables.