Full ring HORSE vs. 6-max 7-game

How does your strategy change from full ring HORSE to 6-max 7-game (or 6-max HORSE or PS's 8-game for that matter)?

I've noticed I'm taking some losses from recent forays into FTP's 6-max 7-game. I have long term results showing profit from full ring HORSE games, so I know I have decent knowledge of all the games. Over the past few weeks, I have taken about 100 big bet overall losses in the 7-game, but I don't think it's due to bad beats, although I'm not running too hot either. I also noticed my losses are primarily not from the NLHE or PLO rounds. And I'm pretty sure if I played the full ring 7-game (of which there are rarely any active tables of), I would be showing profit. It could be a run of bad luck, but I feel like I'm making mistakes (although I don't necessarily recognize what those mistakes are most of the time).

So, how does your strategy change in each game from full ring to 6-max in the HORSE games (of any rotation)?

Define "long term". Hint - 1000 hands is not "long term".

Alot of the games are limit based. As such blind defense is SO much more important 6 max compared to FR.

I would look over your positional stats and be aware of peoples ranges in steal and re steal situations.

In stud games be aware of how the difference in ante may make certain play unprofitable due to less money in the pot.

In stud 8 and O8 play hands with more high hand value as since there is less multiway pots, you don't always get the odds needed to draw.

Without more information that's the best I can give you.

There isn't such a big difference since HORSE full ring is 8-max anyways, maybe you are opening up too much since its 6-max? Its hard to say without any other info.

Hello,
Yes there is not much difference between this two.But I will say from my experience Full ring horse is quite difficulty than 6-max 7-game

I don't have an exact number, but I'd estimate between 2000 and 3000 hands, probably closer to 2000. I know that's not enough to be definitive, but it definitely makes it less likely to be a fluke or good fortune. I've probably done 500-750 hands of 7-game in the past few weeks.

I was thinking the opposite, that maybe I'm not opening up enough. But when I first started analyzing, one of my main concerns was improperly adjusting to the change in players. Losing 2 players from the max per table could make me play either too loose or too tight. I think a primary fault is playing too tight against loose players. Even though they are loose, it's still a smaller hand/forced bet ratio which means I should still be opening up more, albeit not by a whole lot.

I think I generally do most of these. My main problems are adjusting to Stud8 shorthanded and playing too tight in Razz.


If I don't see some improvement in the next couple of sessions I'll make and post a video to see if other people can find specific leaks I'm missing.

im not sure about your poker background, but if youve only played 2000 hands of 7 game, i am guessing you havent played that many hands of stud, of omaha 8. i would suggest playing one game at a time, get a heap of play under your belt then play the next game, till your competant at all forms, then move onto 7 game, otherwise it can be tricky if your ok, at the games, but not great, its gonna be hard to show a profit in my opinion.

I agree with Wizzim. If you've played 2000 hands, you've probably played like 300 hands of each game, which is absolutely nothing. And from the sound of it, you sound pretty amateurish (no offense). I'd suggest sticking with one game at a time, unless you want to develop leaks. Because while you may know the rules of each game, you probably don't know how to play them all well.

I'm curious, why do you feel playing mixed games causes you to be more prone to developing leaks? If you play the same number of hands per game, and study them equally, why would it matter whether it is a single game table or a mixed game table?

what are you trying to say about mixed games?
can you say clearly?
thanks,

I thought it was pretty clear. Let me try again from a slightly different approach.

C9 said "I'd suggest sticking with one game at a time, unless you want to develop leaks."

I interpreted that as him saying that you are more likely to develop leaks by playing in mixed games, and I wanted to know his reasoning for that opinion.

My argument is, if you play, for example, 5000 hands of HORSE it is equivalent to playing 1000 hands of Hold'em on a limit hold'em only table, 1000 hands of Omaha 8 on a limit Omaha 8 only table, etc. If you review your hands after the session is over (study them) the same way regardless of whether the hands are from a one game table (for example a Stud hi only table) or from a mixed game table (eg. HORSE), you should obtain the same amount of experience. As long as you garner the same amount of experience and study the hands you have played after you play them, it shouldn't matter if you play 5000 hands at mixed game tables or 1000 hands/game at single game tables.

Is that enough clarification?

1) No one studies 5 games as closely as they study 1. You can say you study them equally, but you won't.

2) The play at HORSE tables is generally bad, except for at stakes of like $3/$6+, and then it gets tough pretty fast. Learning to play Razz from the terrible Razz players at low limit HORSE will convince you that you have an edge when you really don't. You'll learn a lot of bad habits, and then get crushed when you move up.

3) It takes longer to see the long run & strengths in one game masks deficiencies in others. You'll win at 3 games, but you'll be bleeding chips in the others (and you won't notice since you're still an overall winner). Separating your results in each game from each other will allow you to accurately judge your skills in each of them. When you're beginning, you need quick feedback, and playing 5 games at once slows the rate in which you get feedback.

4) Importing hands into poker tracker from a mixed game is damn near impossible.

If anything, pick 2 games and play 10K hands of each, with intense study as you go. I'd start with a flop game and a stud game, since its much easier to multi-table them (don't multi-table stud hi & razz together, you'll just get really confused). Learn those two games inside & out, then move to the next two.

I expected 2) might be one of your reasons. I agree, I probably have a greater confidence in my play of some of the mixed games due to the atrociousness of micro and low limit HORSE players. I also thought of argument 1) because many pros and books say you can't be experts in all the games (which I agree with), you just become an "expert" in one or two and can play the others well enough to keep your own and adapt to new games.

I didn't think of 3), although I don't disagree. It kind of ties in to 2). And as far as 4), if you mean it's difficult, I don't necessarily think so. As long as you have Hold'em and Omaha Manager and you also have PT Stud (or all the PT programs), it should be doable (albeit expensive for micro players). Although I do agree that you can't follow along as easily because you'd have to switch between programs to follow the progress of hands as it played out.

I will probably follow your advice though, because I do agree with what you're saying. I have 100,000+ hands of NLHE and around 50,000 of LHE outside of mixed games. I'm thinking of moving to PLO and either Stud Hi or Stud 8 (none of which I have significant experience playing). Limit Omaha 8 and Razz can wait. :-p

Well how's about this analogy. You need some work doing at your home (some building work and some plumbing and some carpentry).

You ask for quotes and 4 men turn up at your door at the same time, a 25 year old builder, a 25 year old carpenter and a 25 year old plumber and master builder, plumber and carpenter who is 25 years of age.

Three of the four men go wide eyed for a second, then look at each other, then look away and smile, but I wont tell you which three they were.











You don't hire any of them, at 25 they just don't look experienced enough to you LOL