shorthanded vs full ring
 

lots of authors have written about opening standards shorthanded, and whether it is correct to play assuming that you are at a full table with all folds to you. In other words if you are playing 5 handed, just assume that you are at a 10 handed table and there have been 5 folds.

Gary carson says this is a good start, but if I remember correctly, he goes on to say that you then should loosen up a bit because you pay the blinds more often. This I disagree with but wanted to see what others thought. I also question my thoguhts on this because it is my experience that higher limit players DO loosen up 4 handed vs 10 handed and folded to them in the cutoff. This is simply what it feels like to me, that they loosen up 4 handed in the CO vs 10 handed in the CO with everyone folding to you, but I do not have data to back it up, or rather I have the data but have not systematically analyzed it.

bunching effect is possibly applicable here, but to what extent?

So how many of you have a set opening range from each position in relation to the button and does that range change based on the number of people at the table?

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

Another point to consider here, I think, is that due to the shorthanded nature of the game, postflop play changes which will impact preflop play. I haven't seen much talked about along these lines, but I think it's probably pretty important. I'm sure everyone has experienced how postflop play changes dramatically between 3 handed and 10 handed play when folded to on the button due to the more dramatic impact of table dynamics brought about by the constant confrontations in the shorthanded game.

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

People do loosen up slightly, which means that you should loosen up slightly in the blinds but tighten up slightly in position. On a similar note, there are some players who are weak in blind defense/stealing who can get away with this in a 9- or 10-handed game, but won't usually venture into the shorthanded waters.

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

while my experience could be a function of the limits I play (5/10-20/40) I generally have fairly set opening standards when playing at 6max tables. That being said, I will often open light in the same position at a full table mainly because full ring players usually play worse around the blinds and thus the fringe hands become more profitable.

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

[ QUOTE ]
People do loosen up slightly, which means that you should loosen up slightly in the blinds but tighten up slightly in position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nate, I assume you are meaning your opening standards correct? Let's say it four handed should you not loosen your 3 betting standards from button if CO is opening more frequently?

Intuitively it seems as though on average three or four handed the blinds hands will be weaker than ten handed so if the blinds defend the same amount could we not profitably loosen our opening standards?

Since we both the opener and the blind have relatively weaker hands on average would in a sense our positional advantage be greater?

Now I have no idea how to show this mathematically so it seems as though loosening our standards would be a good idea but as the OP poster pointed out by how much if any is the real question.

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
People do loosen up slightly, which means that you should loosen up slightly in the blinds but tighten up slightly in position.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nate, I assume you are meaning your opening standards correct? Let's say it four handed should you not loosen your 3 betting standards from button if CO is opening more frequently?

[/ QUOTE ]

What I should have said is that you should open up slightly against a raise, but open-raise less yourself.

[ QUOTE ]
Intuitively it seems as though on average three or four handed the blinds hands will be weaker than ten handed so if the blinds defend the same amount could we not profitably loosen our opening standards?

[/ QUOTE ]

Although both effects are minor, I think the blinds tending to defend more often should tend to outweigh the bunching effect.

Another thing to consider is that your table image is a LOT more important short-handed, even in an online game. In a slightly loose 10-handed game it might only be folded to you on the Button once every five orbits, so you can get away with stealing light two or three times in a row before your opponent catches on. 5-handed you might have the opportunity to steal once every other orbit, so your opponent will be much quicker to adjust.

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

How are the blinds hands any weaker because it's shorthanded? They are still random, in my opinion, unless you really subscribe to bunching theory.

As for loosening up, I agree that most players loosen up their open raises, so against those opponents, I'll loosen up 3-betting and defending standards.

However, regardless of how many hands were dealt, the relative strength of your hand is the same in each position... in other words, the same number of people act behind you.

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

I went back into PT and looked at some numbers and here is what I came up with

Here are my stats on the year. 150K sample

3 handed

VPIP button 44.69 PFR 44.65

4 handed

VPIP OTB 32.70 PFR 32.29

5 handed

VPIP OTB 27.17 PFR 26.47

6 handed

VPIP button 23 PFR 21.79

9-10 Handed

VPIP button 19.29 PFR 17.68

Note: sample is skewed towards short handed play so the accuracy of my 9-10 handed numbers is questionable due to small sample size.

Are my opening standards any different on the button 3 handed any different then when it is folded to me OTB 10 handed? Nope, not at all. However at first glance it would appear that way.

But this "loosening up" is naturally occuring due to changing game conditions. 3 handed it is always folded to me OTB whereas 6 or 10 handed there might be a limpers and raises in front of my so my range will be "tighter" so to speak.

Also I think it is interesting that the largest jump in VPIP occurs from 3 to 4 handed. Anyone have any comments on this?

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

The difference is that shorthanded you play more hands postflop against each particular opponent. Therefore, you have a better read on each person in each situation (and they have a better read on you), and the nature of postflop play is quite different.

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

A player who chooses a 6 max table is more lag than a full player. If you took the same players from your laggy 6max table and put them in the 4 late position spots at a full table I'd imagine they'd have the same opening standards (when folded to them).

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

[ QUOTE ]
I went back into PT and looked at some numbers and here is what I came up with

Here are my stats on the year. 150K sample

3 handed

VPIP button 44.69 PFR 44.65

4 handed

VPIP OTB 32.70 PFR 32.29

5 handed

VPIP OTB 27.17 PFR 26.47

6 handed

VPIP button 23 PFR 21.79

9-10 Handed

VPIP button 19.29 PFR 17.68

Note: sample is skewed towards short handed play so the accuracy of my 9-10 handed numbers is questionable due to small sample size.

Are my opening standards any different on the button 3 handed any different then when it is folded to me OTB 10 handed? Nope, not at all. However at first glance it would appear that way.

But this "loosening up" is naturally occuring due to changing game conditions. 3 handed it is always folded to me OTB whereas 6 or 10 handed there might be a limpers and raises in front of my so my range will be "tighter" so to speak.

Also I think it is interesting that the largest jump in VPIP occurs from 3 to 4 handed. Anyone have any comments on this?

[/ QUOTE ]

these numbers are not relevant to this discussion. what you want to look at is your stats when its folded to you. the "attempt to steal" stat on teh button would work.

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

Is this that hard to check? Just compare you VPIP and PFR short handed vs full when first to enter pot from the button. Seems pretty straight forward.

IMO, you will find people more aggressive in short games. When playing short people probably feel more comfortable in the 1on1 situaitons because they have good read on opponenets, thus they are more likely to enter into such confronatations.

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

To add on to what others have said, I think players tend to player tighter/worse from the blinds at a full table, so your late position open raising range should open up more than in a short handed game.

However, there's a lot more to be said for metagame in short handed games, especially 3 and 4 handed. Of course playing that short means preflop play is going to matter much less.

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

[ QUOTE ]
...especially 3 and 4 handed. Of course playing that short means preflop play is going to matter much less.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] Elaborate plz?

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...especially 3 and 4 handed. Of course playing that short means preflop play is going to matter much less.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] Elaborate plz?

[/ QUOTE ]

because playing that short everyone is going to be playing marginal hands that are generally not large favorites over their opponents hands, so you have to rely on postflop play more.

It's not like full ring play where you raise with AK and make a ton of money off the guy who cold calls you with KJ. Short handed those type of domination situations come up less often.

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

This may be just me, but I play tighter 4 handed in the CO than 10 handed a fair amount of the time, because the opportunities for you to steal are much less in full ring, the button or blinds won't really 3bet you as much because it's not as obvious that you are stealing. However, if you are openraising UTG/CO 4 handed, it will become really clear you are opening light and the button of course won't want to give up his positional advantage and start 3betting you a lot, as well as the blinds.

I think the fast and furious pace of 3-4 handed HE can often lead to breakdowns in preflop stragety though. It's really easy to get pissed and then just start open raising 60%.

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

[ QUOTE ]
Gary carson says this is a good start, but if I remember correctly, he goes on to say that you then should loosen up a bit because you pay the blinds more often.

[/ QUOTE ]

This bit is pretty ludicrous.

Before taking my image into consideration, I open the same hands. I think I read some bunching analysis a long time ago and it said that the effect is almost negligible.

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

[ QUOTE ]
This may be just me, but I play tighter 4 handed in the CO than 10 handed a fair amount of the time, because the opportunities for you to steal are much less in full ring, the button or blinds won't really 3bet you as much because it's not as obvious that you are stealing. However, if you are openraising UTG/CO 4 handed, it will become really clear you are opening light and the button of course won't want to give up his positional advantage and start 3betting you a lot, as well as the blinds.

I think the fast and furious pace of 3-4 handed HE can often lead to breakdowns in preflop stragety though. It's really easy to get pissed and then just start open raising 60%.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you've been posting more often.

What do you think about the differing metagame effects of opening light in a 3 or 4 handed game versus a ten handed game?

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

[ QUOTE ]
This may be just me, but I play tighter 4 handed in the CO than 10 handed a fair amount of the time, because the opportunities for you to steal are much less in full ring, the button or blinds won't really 3bet you as much because it's not as obvious that you are stealing. However, if you are openraising UTG/CO 4 handed, it will become really clear you are opening light and the button of course won't want to give up his positional advantage and start 3betting you a lot, as well as the blinds.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with this. 8[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 9[img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] is more valuable when folded to you in the CO/otb in a 10-handed game than in a 4-handed game. I tried to post about this in MHUSH a couple of weeks ago but Josh. locked the thread.

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

[ QUOTE ]

Gary carson says this is a good start, but if I remember correctly, he goes on to say that you then should loosen up a bit because you pay the blinds more often.

[/ QUOTE ]

since it hasn't been explicitly mentioned yet, it's worth pointing out that gary carson is a tard, whoever he is.

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

A key factor in deciding how many hands to play preflop in a 3-4 handed game is whether there is a loose passive fish in the game, and whether he is willing to pay 3 bets to see the flop with most of his hands. In that case, you can raise more because the pot is protected.

But in a typical game where the donator likes to splash around aggressively but shows some discretion when facing a 3-bet preflop, you run the danger of being isolated OOP with a weak hand or playing a weak hand against an opponent who is aggressive and whose main weakness may be getting out of line with weak made hands. That weakness is hard to exploit when your hand mostly makes weaker made hands, and it also kills either the implied odds (your continuation bets are more likely to get checkraised) on a lot of your drawing hands or hurts your chances of winning unimproved (if you check behind to take free cards).

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

Here is how I think about opening from the CO or BU. I have a range that I believe is correct against unknown and/or very good players. I then take into account how much the blinds defend. I tighten up if the sb folds less than 75-70% and if the BB folds less than 40%. I'll loosen up if the bb folds over 50% but given a bb who folds about 40-45% (which I believe is optimal) i wont change my standards even if the SB is very loose. I will also take into account how aggressive and tenacious a player is. If I'm up against a BB that goes to SD 45%+ I'll throw away the 78s and 97s type hands in the CO because its important to have a sense of how often you can win without showdown when deciding what types of hands to play.
if you are in the CO and the button is very loose and floats and or 3 bets a lot you obviously have to tighten up. I think if you take these factors into account it doesn't matter how many players are at the table.

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

[ QUOTE ]
Here is how I think about opening from the CO or BU. I have a range that I believe is correct against unknown and/or very good players. I then take into account how much the blinds defend. I tighten up if the sb folds less than 75-70% and if the BB folds less than 40%. I'll loosen up if the bb folds over 50% but given a bb who folds about 40-45% (which I believe is optimal) i wont change my standards even if the SB is very loose. I will also take into account how aggressive and tenacious a player is. If I'm up against a BB that goes to SD 45%+ I'll throw away the 78s and 97s type hands in the CO because its important to have a sense of how often you can win without showdown when deciding what types of hands to play.
if you are in the CO and the button is very loose and floats and or 3 bets a lot you obviously have to tighten up. I think if you take these factors into account it doesn't matter how many players are at the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just about to make this very post word-for-word. [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]

Re: shorthanded vs full ring
 

[ QUOTE ]
Gary carson

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL