ive heard players talk about it. whats the general consensus out there? is it more profitable for a very good player to play in short vs. full tables? are there more fluctuations in bankroll? if a player plays full and short equally well, assuming he plays at same level no limit game, where will he make the most money?

be very interested to hear the consensus out there.

seems like very few players like playing short. any insight on where the weakest short handed no limit 10/20 blind games are online? ive been playing acr, party, and about to start bodog and vegaspoker247 to check out that action. any sites anyone can recommend for this level?

mikeeeee

You make way more if you can multi-table sh lhe, at least in the lower limits with bonus n rakeback.
more fluctuations in bankroll short handed. are you asking about profit made at LHE vs NL in ur other question?

If you're playing in good games, you'll make more money playing FR. More positions = more opportunities for donks to make obvious mistakes by playing hands they have no business playing preflop. Against a bunch of weak-tight nits though, you'll usually do a little better SH when you can get them out of their comfort zone and punish them for folding too much. The gain you get playing FR with loose donkeys is much larger than the gain from playing SH against the nits however.

i dunno about that

or mb u could call it variance

but I quickly took 30bbs off this one person to my direct right whose vip was at least 90%

I think arguments can be made for both sides when speaking about BB/100.

But when referring to BB/hour (which is what we should really care about when discussing "profit"), short handed obviously offers the chance for bigger dividends since it allows you to play many more hands per hour.

If your win rate is the same for each, short handed will be more rewarding.

--CM

if you're a good poker player you make better decisions than your opponents. Shorthanded we are put to more decisions which means more profit. theres just not enough spots to gamble in full ring to catch up to shorthanded play, imo.

Obv this is very true. However, especially at lower stakes, I'm not sure that many people have a big enough edge to beat the rake in shorthanded games.

I would think the opposite. At lower stakes the play is much much worse, so your decisions run much much better! also, isnt the rake significantly lower online?

It is lower online, but it is a large percent of you winnings, if your 2bb/100 only equals $6 it is going to be a much larger % if your bb $60

whats the difference in rake between full and short? I thought we were talking short vs full not 1/2 vs 30/60.

In short vs full, you pay more rake because you play more pots!

I don't have any numbers at work to back it up. But it's widely known (or people tell me) that SH earns you more in rakeback, so I just assume you pay more initially.

as well as make more as long as u're raking in those pots

I've always read that at low limits, playing SH or HU, the rake essentially has the potential to eat you alive. I don't know exactly how the math comes out, but playing more pots = paying more rake. At low limits, your $/100 rate is going to be fairly low even if you're beating the game for a decent amount, hence the effect of rake is going to be much bigger.

ANd you can play fewer tables, because your VPIP is about 1.5x's what it is in full ring, so you're making far more decisions.
If you can 4 table short handed, you can 6 table full ring (in general).

I would actually argue that you can play more than that, simply because the majority of the hands you play in full ring are fairly straight forward and require much less thought.



Depends on the rake structure.
Different sites cap it at different values, and round to different figures.
It also depends on what your VPIP is for both and a few other things.

Generally it's the difference between 2BB/100 at FR and 3BB/100 at SH, both for small stakes.



It depends on what your edge comes from. Which depends on why players are bad.

The difference between a good decision and a bad decision isnt always big.
Making fewer mistakes than your opponent is a good thing... but all those small things may not add up to the big mistakes that they make playing full ring.

just raise the **** out of them and make them make mistakes, so easy