Full Ring advice

[Chip753]

Hi to everyone. I would like to have a feedback about a particular situation.

I read "Small Stakes HE" by Sklansky cause someone wrote here that this is the best book for the stakes in which I want to start (0.02/0.04 PS). I read it and it's great but I have a problem.
I play at this kind of level and when I play at shorthanded tables I have no problems, while it is completely different when I play at full ring tables. When I played SH I had no negative sessions, while on FR I loose consistently.

I tried to change my way of game a little bit: first I tighten up, then I started to be a little more loose (which is always more thight then Sklansky's advice).
It is unuseful. I have no problems with bad beats but litterally people call everything and you have to play against 6-7 guys. If you don't hit the nut, there are no possibilities to win... and it has to be the nut till river.

I don't like to accept easy solution and I would like to understand if I simply cannot win at this level FR (and I have to play just SH) or it is a problem of mine.

Thank you for your opinions. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[LukeSLTS]

Small Stakes holdem was written primarily by Ed Miller.

If you never had a losing session playing shorthanded then you haven't played enough sessions and you have had sick luck. The variance in shorthanded games is greater than that of the full ring. In full ring tighter play is generally the best approach. A VPIP of 15% isn't overly tight, whereas in shorthanded play you would be broke quickly with a VPIP that low.

[Chip753]

Maybe but the fact is that in SH play I rarely arrived at showdown (I suppose it is not so much about luck), while in FR I always arrived there and I saw some amazing things (and I played just very good hands!)...

[BadBigBabar]

hi chip, you'll need a large sample size to be sure of anything in this game. at least 10k hands or so of lhe should be enough to spot basic trends, however. i have a hunch you may not be there yet. we all go through crazy short term stretches of variance.

[ckj]

If you never loose at SH, just play that. I wish I had this problem. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[kerowo]

I would advise skipping .02/.04 altogether and trying something higher. I think the amount of bad habits you learn there far outweighs any good habits you might pick up.

[Dankenstein]

[ QUOTE ]
I would advise skipping .02/.04 altogether and trying something higher. I think the amount of bad habits you learn there far outweighs any good habits you might pick up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[HermannTL]

Your .02/.04 FR experience is almost certainly variance (perhaps with a dollop of bad postflop play...like mine). Those 6 or 7 guys are hemorraging money and if you hang around you will drink their blood. :very evil icon that we should have:

You may need to hit the nut but when you do they'll pay you enough to make up for all the bad beats. It just may take 10,000 (or more) hands for this to be apparent.

However, as said above you may pick up bad habits at that level that will set you up for serious losses when you meet the proverbial "players who will respect your raises."

I have only managed to work my way up to .10/.20 and the games are significantly tighter there than at .05/.10 which in turn is tighter than .02/.04. In fact on Stars the .10/.20 can get rather nitty (though there are still 70+ VP$IP players to be found). Just last night I didn't feel like I had the concentration for .10/.20 so I dropped down to two-table .02/.04. Naturally I lost. [img]/images/graemlins/blush.gif[/img]

[Sarge85]

[ QUOTE ]
I would advise skipping .02/.04 altogether and trying something higher. I think the amount of bad habits you learn there far outweighs any good habits you might pick up.

[/ QUOTE ]

True on some many different aspects of the game.

Get out and up if you can.

Sarge[img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]

[neurotiq]

[ QUOTE ]

If you never had a losing session playing shorthanded then you haven't played enough sessions

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what I was thinking when I read OP. It's impossible to ALWAYS win every single session. Have you noticed that even the best pros in the world don't win the WSOP every year? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

It sounds like, from what you've posted, you've played only very few hands at both FR and 6m, which means that your sample size is so small that you won't be able to draw meaningful trends about how well you play each based on your win rate alone. Once you've played about 10K hands, you should have a better idea of what your win rate is (and even at 10K hands chance error is still a possibility but at least it's less so).