Short handed or full tables?

Which do you prefer?


  • Total voters
    15
bubbasbestbabe

bubbasbestbabe

Suckout Queen
Just a quick little survey here. Which do you prefer and why?

I myself love shorthanded tables. I am able to play hands a little bit freer. And I am able to dominate a short handed table better.
 
Four Dogs

Four Dogs

Legend
Awards
1
Shorthanded, or even heads-up should be the answer for any solid player. The fewer opponents you're facing, the less luck is involved. Look at it this way; at a full table of 10, you've got to look at the situation as if you’re facing one opponent with 9 chances at the pot vs. your 1. I think of it as this huge table monster. It's really irrelevant to you which one of them wins the pot. If it's not you, you lose. The fewer opponents you're facing, the more similar your starting hands become to the average winning hand at the table, until you get heads-up and your true opponent, the table monster, has been effectively declawed. He can no longer subsidize his weak play with more chances. At this point, the best man usually wins.
 
ChuckTs

ChuckTs

Legend
I don't mind 10-handed, because a tight aggressive style works like a charm there.
Usually people at a full ring get so impatient that they start playing weaker hands, and when you get that top 10 hand, it's time to pound on em.
I also really like 6-handed though. It's great because you can actually dominate a table to the point of everyone folding everything but AA,KK,AK,AQ, and JJ; and this makes it very easy to steal pots and blinds.
 
titans4ever

titans4ever

Legend
I thought I liked full tables and do the top 10 hand thing and slowly build my bankroll. It is interesting but fourdogs hit it right. You have to try and get reads on 9 people and figure out how each play to make a solid it or at least single out the fish and take it to just them. You are playing 10-20% of hands and watching alot so I have to play 3-4 tables to keep the pace up. Guess that I am one of those impatient ones Chuck talks about.

I decided to play some heads up to see what I could do. I like the pace since you are in every hand. You can start to catch tendencies quickly against a single opponent. The ones on PS last between 3 and 30 minutes depending on you opponent with most lasting about 20 which is about how long I like to play anyway. I don't usually have 2-3 hours to do the grind thing with a wife and 2 kids. Opponents at the $5 ones don't change speeds and you can run most over just by being aggressive but not overaggressive. They tend to be to passive and not reraise for information and see where they truely stand. So far I am 14 and 6 and would say that I was really challenged at maybe 2 or 3 of them. The rest I knew it was just a matter of time before I had a shot to take them out. My only heads up experience before that was in S&G's and MTT's final tables. I think this will only help my game in the long run.

Here are two of my better days:
https://www.cardschat.com/showthread.php?t=68743
 
medeiros13

medeiros13

Rock Star
For me, I really like a 6 player table when I am playing SnG's. I've found that when I start even up with people, I have a very very good chance of cashing at the end of the day.

I like to play 10 players when participating in a ring game. I like the idea of having a greater number of hands to select from before I'm in the blinds. I've also found that since I always bring the min amount to start at a table, the big stacks will try to bully me. By playing a 10 person table, I'm able to use better starting hand selection than when I'm in a 6 person table. The reason is simple, the blinds are coming at me more often and eating away at my original buy in.

As far as heads up play...I haven't played much with a table that is exclusively just this. Obvioulsy, I have some experience with the SnG's but I'm usually either way behind in chips or ahead. I think it'd be an interesting game for me to try out sometime. More than likely I'd have to be a little more aggressive than I usually am...maybe that'd help my overall game
 
ChuckTs

ChuckTs

Legend
just another thing i wanted to say:

6-handed games are much better for improving your gameplay and hand-reading skills aswell.
At an agressive s/h table, you're forced into many more marginal situations; say in the BB and raised into with a KT. Here, if you're being raised by a really aggressive player, then maybe you should reraise him to represent a big hand.
It takes alot of balls to do stuff like this, and you're forced to rely on your hand reading skills, which are greatly improved when you get in these situations.
I can't tell you how much experience i've taken from playing 2/4 and 1/2 NLH shorthanded rings. Almost every pot you enter is basically the aggressor's pot. Most of the time neither of you are hitting the flop, so the most aggressive player usually wins the pot. Though to be this aggressive, you have to have excellent reads on your opponents to make, say a massive reraise with AK high on a board with 1 paint card showing.
 
Tammy

Tammy

Moderator
Moderator
Awards
10
I like short-handed games for the reasons BBB mentioned, plus seeing as how I have three children, it's not as if I a lot of spare time to sit and play poker. Naptime only lasts for so long, and I can only stay up so late after the kiddies are snug in their beds. But one thing I stay away from like the plague: Shorthanded Turbo SNGs! I've learned the hard way that these are usually a crap-shoot.
 
ChuckTs

ChuckTs

Legend
i completely agree, jQ - crapshoot is a perfect word for 'em.
they hardly give you enough time to get a hand, and force you to play K6 type hands in order to compete...
 
starfall

starfall

Visionary
I tend to prefer full ring games, because they seem to be the most profitable for Limit Omaha H/L - you can have several players chasing 2nd best low hands and the like, and can wait for a premium starting hand quite comfortably, and amongst the players staying in often one or more are basically drawing dead.
In Holdem I like short-handed better, because the poor players improve their odds when they enter big family pots, and short-handed does reduce the number of suck-outs a bit, at least.
 
Four Dogs

Four Dogs

Legend
Awards
1
titans4ever said:
So far I am 14 and 6 and would say that I was really challenged at maybe 2 or 3 of them.
14 and 6? Really? I don't doubt you Titan, but in HU, that is almost unheard of. I'm nowhere's near that good. In most HU SnG's you need to win about 55% to keep ahead of the buy-in. Your at 70%. Nice work. Keep it up.
 
titans4ever

titans4ever

Legend
Four Dogs said:
14 and 6? Really? I don't doubt you Titan, but in HU, that is almost unheard of. I'm nowhere's near that good. In most HU SnG's you need to win about 55% to keep ahead of the buy-in. Your at 70%. Nice work. Keep it up.

I don't know if it is beginners luck or what but it is only 20 games and it is only the $5 ones at PS. I think I will have better idea after about 50 of them to see where I really fall. I had two good days when I won 4 of 5 and another when I won 4 of 4.
https://www.cardschat.com/showthread.php?t=68743
 
T

tucum

Rock Star
i like 6 player tables and short handed tables because here lately i havent had the patience too play in ten player tables i need to be a little more patient so until i get it back in control i play short handed or two person
 
Beriac

Beriac

Guest
It's interesting that people are disagreeing on this (short vs. full tables). I can see how playing at a short table allows one to loosen up their game and play more hands which adds another skill dimension, yet the more marginal hands one is forced to play adds a luck factor.

That's one of the reasons that I like SNGs. If you play a full-table SNG, I find at least a few of the players (at low- to mid-level buy-ins) are either impatient or total yahoos and will blow up early. So your EV benefits from tight, quality play early on while giving you a chance to mix it up later when the blinds are higher and there are less people.
 
Starting Hands - Poker Hand Nicknames Rankings - Poker Hands
Top