SSH: What is a 'short-handed POT'?

[nomdeplume]

I've already posted this question in the beginner's section but didn't really get an answer, so apologies for the cross post.

In SSH on p.114, Ed Miller says that "Hand values change in heads-up and short-handed pots". What does he mean by a 'short-handed pot'? Does he mean any pot that arises from a short-handed game, or does he mean a full ring game with few players?

The reason I'm confused is that in the back of the book he defines a 'multiway pot' as three-handed or more. So a short-handed pot is presumeably therefore two-handed. But a two-handed pot is surely 'heads-up', so why does he say "...heads-up or in short-handed pots..."? Aren't they the same thing?

[sthief09]

he means any pot that's being contested by 2 or 3 players. it's the opposite of a multiway pot

[Filet O' Fish]

I also beleive that he is refering to two players or less not including yourself constituting a short handed pot that is why he doesn't call it heads up.

[nomdeplume]

[ QUOTE ]
he means any pot that's being contested by 2 or 3 players. it's the opposite of a multiway pot

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your replies. This is what's confusing me though, sthief. In the back of the book he says a multiway pot IS 3-handed or more. A 3-handed pot can't be both multiway and short-handed can it?

[Stew]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
he means any pot that's being contested by 2 or 3 players. it's the opposite of a multiway pot

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your replies. This is what's confusing me though, sthief. In the back of the book he says a multiway pot IS 3-handed or more. A 3-handed pot can't be both multiway and short-handed can it?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you need to worry more about small and large and not short-handed or multi-way.

[nomdeplume]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to worry more about small and large and not short-handed or multi-way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I agree, but I'd still like to know the answer. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Ed Miller]

Yes, I agree, but I'd still like to know the answer.

Ya, it appears there's some inconsistency between the way the terms "multiway" and "short-handed" are treated in the text and how they are treated in the glossary. Thanks for pointing it out. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

When I say "short-handed" pot, I basically mean 3-handed or perhaps 4-handed under some circumstances. But most of these concepts aren't absolute-based. That is, when I say, "In short-handed pots, do this," I usually mean something like, "As the pot becomes more short-handed, be more likely to do this." Unfortunately, a book full of statements like those can be wishy-washy and confusing.

In my paradigm for evaluating poker decisions, I generally assemble a list of relevant factors: pot size, number of players, likelihood of having the best hand, likelihood of improving, likelihood of being drawn out on, playing tendencies of your opponents, etc." Then I say, "As the pot size gets bigger, I'm more likely to raise. As the likelihood of being drawn out on increases, I'm less likely to raise." Then I combine all those into one picture for the situation and come to a conclusion about whether I'm going to raise or not.

[nomdeplume]

Wow, a reply from the man himself! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

This clears it up for me Ed, thanks very much. I'm working through your book for the second time with a fine tooth comb, and I just wanted to make sure.

[djack]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, a reply from the man himself! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not rare.

[Joe B.]

Thanks

Ed, the book is really awesome.just pick it up recently.

is there anything else that change since it been publish July 2004? any errors or correction we should know?

if so is there a printout of all the corrections, so we can print it out and add it to the book?
thanks