Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Poker Discussion > Books and Publications
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 07-19-2005, 05:23 PM
teddyFBI teddyFBI is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 99
Default Adapting Miller\'s GSIH short-stack strategy to 6max tables.

I've really enjoyed using the GSIH short-stack strategy in full-ring games from 400NL up to 2000NL (although I get a little gunshy there at the very top when sticking in $400 with just an overpair).
The thing is, though that at nearly all of those levels, there are FAR more 6-max tables going than full 10-max tables...much easier to find a seat, especially mid-day...also much easier to jump around tables...and I'm wondering whether there's been discussion on this forum or elsewhere about whether the strategy needs adapting to short-handed games...after all, I can't just wait around to get one of the top 5 premium hands and let the blinds eat me up (or can I??). Has this been discussed here at all...Mr. Miller, care to chime in??
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 07-19-2005, 06:16 PM
Beach-Whale Beach-Whale is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 55
Default Re: Adapting Miller\'s GSIH short-stack strategy to 6max tables.

It has, and I made the point that if a strategy NEEDS adaption to shorthanded play, it would benefit from those same changes in full games. So if you find any changes that makes the strategy better in shorthanded games, use them in full games too. The changes would constitute an improved strategy, not an adapted strategy.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 07-19-2005, 06:44 PM
teddyFBI teddyFBI is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 99
Default Re: Adapting Miller\'s GSIH short-stack strategy to 6max tables.

[ QUOTE ]
It has, and I made the point that if a strategy NEEDS adaption to shorthanded play, it would benefit from those same changes in full games. So if you find any changes that makes the strategy better in shorthanded games, use them in full games too. The changes would constitute an improved strategy, not an adapted strategy.

[/ QUOTE ]

That really doesn't make much sense. That's like saying that an optimal VPIP in 6max should be 27%, and therefore you should be using that in a 10max game too. That, of course, would be wrong, and simply isn't logical.
Perhaps if you explained your response a little more...
(or simply pointed me to the thread that discussed this)
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 07-19-2005, 07:03 PM
Rudbaeck Rudbaeck is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 555
Default Re: Adapting Miller\'s GSIH short-stack strategy to 6max tables.

[ QUOTE ]
That really doesn't make much sense. That's like saying that an optimal VPIP in 6max should be 27%, and therefore you should be using that in a 10max game too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your seat by seat VPIP doesn't change all that much from 10-max to 6-max actually. It's just that the four seats from which you play very few hands have fallen off the table.

I think you can start out by playing the SSS unchanged shorthanded. Just notice that you are in effect in 'middle position' UTG shorthanded. (This is why position should always be counted as seats off the button. To avoid confusion!)

So, 3 off the button you can open with the same hands regardless off if it's 10 or 6 handed. Shorthanded you'll probably get fewer chances to limp speculative hands on the button though.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 07-19-2005, 07:07 PM
binions binions is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4
Default Re: Adapting Miller\'s GSIH short-stack strategy to 6max tables.

[ QUOTE ]
I've really enjoyed using the GSIH short-stack strategy in full-ring games from 400NL up to 2000NL (although I get a little gunshy there at the very top when sticking in $400 with just an overpair).
The thing is, though that at nearly all of those levels, there are FAR more 6-max tables going than full 10-max tables...much easier to find a seat, especially mid-day...also much easier to jump around tables...and I'm wondering whether there's been discussion on this forum or elsewhere about whether the strategy needs adapting to short-handed games...after all, I can't just wait around to get one of the top 5 premium hands and let the blinds eat me up (or can I??). Has this been discussed here at all...Mr. Miller, care to chime in??

[/ QUOTE ]

I have played a fair amount on 6 handed tables.

For starting hands, I use Ed's middle hands 3 and 2 off the button, and Ed's late hands in the cutoff and button.

It is my experience that you are called more more often short-handed, and therefore face a wider variety of hands. In addition, players often raise with weaker hands than they would raise with in the same position 10 handed.

Because you are not sacrificing hand strength and will get more action on your raises, make them pay to play. Your initial raise should be higher than your normal raise at a 10 handed table.

I am experimenting with the following theory short-handed: if called, your goal should be to have enough stack left over to make a pot sized all-in bet on the flop. So, with a 25xBB stack, make your initial raise 8xBB. With a 20xBB stack, raise 6xBB, etc.

With respect to the weaker than normal raises made by others, here is where you have to pay attention and make notes. Once you know someone loosens their raising standards, you can add 99 and AQ to your reraising hands for that player.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.