Re: What would you like to see covered in the upcoming SSNL book?
[ QUOTE ]
I just personally feel that 6-max is a more advanced topic.
[/ QUOTE ]
And most likely you are right. In shorthanded games you get confronted more frequently with more marginal decisions than in FR. A lot of people therefore consider 6-max to have more to do with 'playing-poker' than FR. Even more extreme, others believe that shorthanded NLHE is the most difficult form of poker to master, with heads up NLHE probably being the hardest (is my guess).
Therefore there is so much to talk about that many (including myself) believe that shorthanded play deserves a much more elaborate treatise than the chapters that are usually devoted to it.
You might also say, that in both FR and SH many of the same principles apply, but that due to the specific circumstance changes these principles are more difficult to apply to SH games, or that these principles are more relevant in SH games. On the basis of that notion you could argue that instead of a elaborate treatise of SH play you could be more elaborate on pokerprinciples in general, and then discuss how these principles are subject to changes like broader handranges, more agression etc., I dunno.
Be as it may, I think that FR players would also benefit from a discussion on SH play and also, that these players would benefit in general from playing SH more often. (for that matter, I think that vice versa is also true).
|