hey all, I didn't know where to post this question so this part of the forum seems pretty logical.

I was wondering what the hype is about short handed hold'em? Do you guys prefer it because it's more fun since you see a lot more hands or because you're making more BBs per hour playing it (assuming you're a winning player) ?

Game selection is DRASTICALLY better in 6max than in full ring. Lots and lots more fishies.
It's also much more fun imo. Many more marginal decisions, etc.
Of course, the variance makes you puke.
So, it's more profitable than ring IMO. But, again, the variance is a killer.

People are way out of their element therefore it's much more profitable.

Lots of players use the same starting hand requirements as full-ring. Others use 6-max as an excuse to play 24os UTG.

In short, 80% (at my low stakes that is) of the player's play 6-max incorrectly. That's why I like it.

I just do it because I'm an action junky who like to play K9o

1) $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

2) It's fun

3) I love variance



Nit.

Puke blood, that is. Through your nose. Profusely. (gee, can you tell I'm running bad?)

how much bb per 100 hands are you guys earning for short handed lhe?? If it's not too rude to ask

Well, because of the variance your win rates can get quite skewed.

For example, hotbacon is one of the better players/posters here and he had a stretch of 40k hands where he wasn't a winning player. In my database, there are similar stretches where the same is true of me, and I'd assume everyone else who plays SH as their primary game.

Your true win rate will be higher over time in comparison to full ring (if you are a good SH player). You're standard deviation is also going to be higher though.

geez, so what's the required broll for playing short handed limit? 500 or 600bbs?

Biggest benefit of playing shorthanded is isolating the fish.

When you're chasing after a donk from table to table in a full ring game it's easy for them to hide amongst 9 or 10 players.

When you're a donk amongst only 4 or 5 other players there's no where to run.

You're going to get eaten alive by the better players over time.

BB Bankroll? I think 200 BB is minimum for shorthanded limit holdem.

The higher the limit the more BB you'll need because there will be more capping on each street. Lower limits usually have more passive players.

Make that 500.

i'd actually say 600 if you're playing at aggressive games. if they're still LP, then 500 is fine, but if you're finding the right tables, i'd really suggest 600BB.

I never sit at a full table anymore. I love the action.

500 BB is a bare minimum. You might be able to get away with 400BB or so in really passive games, like .5/1 or whatever.
The higher you go though, the bigger BR you need. Bigger than 500 BB.

You guys haven't played in low limit games for a while.

OP is obviously not playing 20/40 if he's asking this question.

Take a walk with me to the world of .5/1 to 2/4 limit...the games are so soft that if you are blowing 300 BB then you need to step even lower.

Of course more money is always better but let's be real here.

Nobody's dumping $1000 into a bankroll so they can play 1/2. Fact is, most players playing this low don't even have a "bankroll" concept.

You play...if you bust, then just reload. It's not like losing your life savings.

If you want some cushion for regular swings then I think 200 BB is more than fair in low limits.

I didn't have 500 BB to start and you can call me Sally if more then 40% of poker players do this (and yes, I'm including the average person).

Actually i was playing 2/4 less than a month ago.
That the games are so soft doesn't mean you won't be blowing 300 BB.
I would venture to say that anyone who plays 2/4 long enough WILL take a 300 BB loss. It's mathematics here.

In your example of 1k for 1/2, you assume that the bankroll is replinishable i.e. that the actual bankroll is > 1k. Bankrolls are assumed to be THE ONLY money available for poker.

200 BB for 6max is preposterous. 200 BB swings are almost normal in 6max if you're a good player.
400BB would probably be ok for passive .5/1 and maybe 1/2 tables.
I'd say any stakes over 2/4 require at least 500 BB.
Of course, if the OP wants to sacrafice win rate for lower variance by playing weak/tight, then I guess 400 BB might be ok for 2/4.


Most poker players go broke too.

10-15 buy-ins for low limit NL short-handed. (0.10/0.25 - 0.5/1)

20+ buy-ins as you move up into the low-mid ranges. (1/2 & 2/4)

25-30+ for the big boy tables (3/6, 5/10+).

More is better obviously. If you're crushing a game, why not pad the b/r a bit more before moving up? It can't hurt.

Damn right you need >500 BB.

On a 200 BB downswing right now.

hmmm

alright, i'm gonna play a few thousand hands at 2/4 short handed before I take on 3/6.

I'm a winning player at 1/2 and 2/4 limit in ring games...so, any books I should read about short handed lhe? I read the section in advanced hold'em by sklansky

I wouldn't worry too much about books. Shorthanded comes more from experience. I don't really think there are any good SH books out there atm. SH is just too hard to write about.
Just read/post about hands and post a **** load of your own hands. Make sure you get PT/acehud if you don't already and check your stats after 10k or so hands to see if anything is terribly off.

I did something similar. I started SH at 2/4 with a 400BB bankroll. I was beating the game for 3BB/100 over 5.5k hands and had $2400+ in my BR when I moved up to 3/6. If I'd dropped enough at 3/6 right away I'd have dropped back down making sure I had enough for a minimum 400BB at 2/4. Instead, I've won some, but not a ton over my 5.5k at 3/6. I plan to move up to 5/10 when I have about $4k and a minimum 10-15k 3/6 hands. If I drop 100BB, I'll move back down.

I think 400BB is a big enough roll to take a shot at the next level as long as you're willing to move back down if you hit rough waters. If I was playing professionally I'd have a minimum 500BB and a few months savings though.

Touche

No specifics for SH, but I think Theory of Poker is good for it.

4 to 500BB. Low limits have more variance than higher limits.

what? why is that?

I'd like an explanation as well.

more fish I think, guys that will call all ins with flush draws and such, great when you are winning and they are missing, sucks when it is the other way around

ok but as you move up the limits in short handed games, wouldn't you encounter more people who are either as good as you or better? I'd assume bigger swings as you move up, no?

I woulld think in general as you move up people would play a more consistant game which would lower variance as long as you were a solid player

The higher you play, the more variance. This is due to the more aggressive nature of the higher limit games.

Your edges on players becomes a lot smaller as you move up in limits.

In lower limits, you can't read opponents' hands as well. You have to call down more. You'll suffer plenty of bad beats. You have to push marginal hands a lot. You'll probably be playing more hands than you would against better players.

I did assume that higher limit players are better, but that might be a mistaken assumption. I also assumed that one would be better to play at that level, which may also be a poor assumption.

I could be wrong.

Steppin Razor,

Fish and bad players in general contribute to a higher win rate. Nevermind the fact that you'll see more awful beats, you forget the thousands of times you get to value bet them to death with TPTK and get paid off by something dubious.

A higher win rate means less variance. This is because, even when running bad, you often have a great enough edge to offset getting cold-decked.

This isn't the case at higher limits, since the players not only get better, but they get more aggressive. Your edge is heavily diminished, your win rate suffers, and through your tough swings you'll no longer have people buffering you by letting you value bet them.

So I guess we could infer that bad beats are actually a sign of LESS variance, since it generally indicates a good table (i.e. one you want to play on).