2/4... short handed or full table

[DoggerPA]

what are the advantages to each... how do you adjust to short table, do you or do you play the same?

[skibandit]

Through my experiences playing 2/4, I have noticed that people will play pretty much anyhand, any position. I try to play my regular tight/aggressive style. If it only say 5 handed, I just pretend that it is a full table and the first 3 -4 people have folded after the blinds. I will loosen up my game a little bit, but will also play more aggressive...

In the end, I still prefer to play on a full table that is loose/passive (which most 2/4 tables are) and tight/agressive. Yes, it does get boring since you don't play many hands, but you will get the most money in the long run.

[BostonMetro]

Ed Miller wrote a great article talking about how you should think about SH play. The most interesting thing I took from it was his showing that you aren't hurt b/c you play the blinds more often because when you are in the blinded positions you actually have greater equity SH. I think this was the gist of it but you can look it up.

[downtownSF]

The bankroll ups and downs aren't as extreme in a full table setting. If you play short handed you need to be able to handle bigger downswings in your bankroll without losing it mentally. That said, I think short handed may be slightly more profitable. I've won just about the same amount of BB/100 short handed as I have in a full table setting but shorthanded you play more hands per hour. There also seem to be an abundance of fishy players, calling down with king high and playing every hand in the blinds. Making the adjustment that skibandit suggested is probally the best way to start out playing short handed, of coarse making adjustments as you learn the other players tendencies.