Question about starting hand chart

[Jailblazers]

I've recently started using a starting hand chart (shorthanded)

Got a couple questions about this one.

1. Is there a better one?

2. On some hands like A9s and A8s, it says if you are the opener that you should "raise first in or 2 limpers, call or check otherwise". But since we are the opener, this should be an automatic raise then. Typo maybe?

3. Under the small blind column, when it says 3B3 with AJ. I don't understand why we wouldn't 3-bet all the time. Are we losing money by raising (not 3-betting) in a 5-way pot?

4. On some hands like TT-99 and 88-77, it says that when facing a raise, you should 3B2-99. WTF does that mean?

5. Why is there no column for BB? I would assume that a lot of money is won/lost in that position. Like what hands should you raise with, 3-bet with, call a raise, or check with. No?

[Smurph64]

Playing shorthanded is probably not the best plan for you yet based on your other posts.

This one is good but way too complicated for micros. Look at the starting hand charts for FR and start from middle position.

Be more aware of your postflop play and be prepared to fold a lot more in 6 max postflop than you do in FR, most people tend to fold less and that is why 6 max can be more lucriative.

Personally I haven't looked at a starting hand chart in a long time. I go with flow management myself by tucking inside the ranges of my opponents.

[marchron]

[ QUOTE ]
2. On some hands like A9s and A8s, it says if you are the opener that you should "raise first in or 2 limpers, call or check otherwise". But since we are the opener, this should be an automatic raise then. Typo maybe?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. With A9s you want to open raise if it's folded to you on the basis of high card strength. If two people limp you want to raise them for value based on its multiway potential. If only one person has limped, you don't quite have enough hand to raise him, so you'd rather limp along and hope to get that multiway pot. Of course, poker is situational and you may want to raise a sole limper if he's terrible, or if he's CO and you're Button, or whatever. The entire purpose of a starting hand chart is to eventually make itself redundant.

[ QUOTE ]
3. Under the small blind column, when it says 3B3 with AJ. I don't understand why we wouldn't 3-bet all the time. Are we losing money by raising (not 3-betting) in a 5-way pot?

[/ QUOTE ]
If the action goes limp, limp, Button raises, you're in the small blind with AJ, three-betting is probably unwise. Button is likelier than normal to have AJ crushed. But again, poker is situational; if the action went loose maniac UTG raises, two dummies coldcall, you're in the SB with AJ, you should consider three-betting.

[ QUOTE ]
4. On some hands like TT-99 and 88-77, it says that when facing a raise, you should 3B2-99. WTF does that mean?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd imagine it means you should "3B2" — "3bet lone LAG or CO, call 2 or more" — with 99 and just go ahead and three-bet all the time with TT.

[ QUOTE ]
5. Why is there no column for BB? I would assume that a lot of money is won/lost in that position. Like what hands should you raise with, 3-bet with, call a raise, or check with. No?

[/ QUOTE ]
Because poker is a game of adult diapers, and nowhere is the answer "It depends" more than blind defense. Against some people you might fold a hand like AT; against others you might three-bet A2C. You can't make a chart on how to play the big blind in 6-max.

[Jailblazers]

[ QUOTE ]
Playing shorthanded is probably not the best plan for you yet based on your other posts.

This one is good but way too complicated for micros. Look at the starting hand charts for FR and start from middle position.

Be more aware of your postflop play and be prepared to fold a lot more in 6 max postflop than you do in FR, most people tend to fold less and that is why 6 max can be more lucriative.

Personally I haven't looked at a starting hand chart in a long time. I go with flow management myself by tucking inside the ranges of my opponents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I will switch to FR. How do you feel about me 4-tabling?

[Smurph64]

Well multitabling has a function, namely it teaches you how to get through the micro levels without learning as much as you can so that you can give back all your winnings at the higher levels most likely.

I didn't multi table for a year. Now I multi occassionally but as I climb up again I am staying with 2 tables.

If you are playing for a bonus, then multitabling lower levels than you are bankrolled for will likely be less risky and make more money than single tabling the higher levels.

But if you aren't going for bonuses, and if you aren't professional trying to make a living playing poker, why would you want to give up so much of your perceived edge by multitabling?

[Ulkis]

About 4-tabling. For someone relatively new to poker -like me- there is NO WAY one can 4-table and play optimum poker. And I used to work on the trading desk and am quite used to different screens, multitasking, and following various bits of information at the same time.

I sometimes 2-table for the reason that it seems to reduce my variance as there is less chance getting bored when not receiving decent cards and thus getting frustrated and then trying to push too hard beyond my skills and force situations, and from then on it usually goes downhill.

The downside is if at the same time on both tables I get a good hand. No way then I can give 100% attention to both situations and play them both to the optimum.

And this with "only" 2 tables.

[ThunderEagle]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok I will switch to FR. How do you feel about me 4-tabling?

[/ QUOTE ]

The question is how do you feel about you 4 tabling? Make a self eval, do you think you are paying enough attention to all 4 tables?

Sounds like you should definitely not play more than 2 6 max tables at once till you get a little more experience.

Now, full ring, depends on how fast the tables move you are playing on. I personally multitable because I get bored silly otherwise.

[kerowo]

[ QUOTE ]
Well multitabling has a function, namely it teaches you how to get through the micro levels without learning as much as you can so that you can give back all your winnings at the higher levels most likely.

[/ QUOTE ]

We have a Great White Nit here.

[ QUOTE ]

I didn't multi table for a year. Now I multi occassionally but as I climb up again I am staying with 2 tables.


[/ QUOTE ]

Multi = more than 1. This made me smile.

[Smurph64]

Nit or not I don't really care. Very few people can multi table while they are learning and not cost themselves some issues in the future. At the very least be aware of that.

Reading the other forums I see stuff and players constantly in trouble because they were chasing the dollars instead of chasing the knowledge.

If you are good enough to do both, congrats. I know I am not. I prefer to learn as much as possible first.

No one should advocate multi tabling as a function of getting more hands under your belt faster so you gain experience. I am not suggesting you are here but when the question gets posted here, I assume that people who are new should get more than the pat answer of multitable is fine, the players suck, if you play ABC poker you are rarely going to run into situations where you will get into too much trouble by dividing your interest and hell I did it why not level as fast as you can so you can make real money sooner.

In the spirit of the question, as it usually comes in this context, I am answering that no I don't think its a good idea to multi table.

In the past, I talked about how I would target multi tabling players and I am not saying that now. That lesson I have learned. But at the same time the experience I gain from playing concentrated poker on one table is much greater than the experience I gain when I play 4-6 tables at once.

It may be coincidence, it may not but when I concentrate my focus and pay attention to one table, I lose less and win more. At 6 max its a very noticeable difference.

I like developing good habits. I think having the patience to learn to play one table at a time is not a bad skill to have. It helps me understand the grind.

I have played online for about 24 non consecutive months now. I have played around 140k hands of LHE. Some guys can knock that off 800 hands in an hour without breaking a sweat.

I would be broke if I tried. So do what you think is best OP. Listen to a nit from Canada or listen to a lolcat but most of all, listen to yourself.

[nightwood]

[ QUOTE ]
I think having the patience to learn to play one table at a time is not a bad skill to have. It helps me understand the grind.


[/ QUOTE ]

I pretty much second all what you said. Nonetheless, when it comes to FR, I just can't bring myself to play single-table; I play two. Getting 20 bad pocket hands in a row happens quite often and single-tabling FR that means 20mins of watching. That beats my patience.