BB/100 Shorthand

Printable View

12-06-2005, 12:22 AM
kabell

BB/100 Shorthand

I did some searches, but couldn't find anything. I have been wondering what a good BB/100 hand is when playing shorthanded? As far as I understand it should easily be higher than when playing longhand.

I'm still fooling around at the .25/.50 level, but with my longhand play well on my way towards 300BB for 1/2 :) [edit: I mean 0.5/1 of course]
- kabell
12-06-2005, 12:24 AM
euphoricism

range will stay about the same
12-06-2005, 12:28 AM
kabell

Quote:

Originally Posted by euphoricism

range will stay about the same

So there's actually no real point in playing shorthand instead of longhand?
12-06-2005, 12:32 AM
midas06

You will play your 100 hands faster.
12-06-2005, 12:38 AM
kabell

Quote:

Originally Posted by midas06

You will play your 100 hands faster.

Ah, yes, I see. Now, that's a pretty good point.

As I guess you all can I sense I'm a newbie. Would it be best for me to focus on longhand og shorthand for now?

Thanks for the answears guys.

- kabell
12-06-2005, 12:40 AM
midas06

Master full tables before going 6max
12-06-2005, 12:45 AM
Demiparadigm

You'll also pay more rake shorthanded.
This can be a good thing if you are getting rakeback.

Playing shorthanded limit is probably a little tougher than full ring. It requires a lot more marginal decisions.
12-06-2005, 01:01 AM
elipsesjeff

Quote:

Originally Posted by midas06

Master full tables before going 6max

Sometimes a little 6max can do wonders for a weak-tighty.

Regarding the original thread, you are killing 6 max if you can average a 2 bb/100 winrate.
12-06-2005, 08:55 AM
thenonsequitur

I'm going to disagree with the commonly-made statement that you should be good at full ring before 6-max. It's true, you will lose more bets starting with 6-max than if you start with full ring. However, the extra initial investment is well worth it, IMO, because you will learn poker so much more quickly by playing 6-max.
12-06-2005, 10:37 AM
kabell

Quote:

Originally Posted by thenonsequitur

I'm going to disagree with the commonly-made statement that you should be good at full ring before 6-max. It's true, you will lose more bets starting with 6-max than if you start with full ring. However, the extra initial investment is well worth it, IMO, because you will learn poker so much more quickly by playing 6-max.

Interesting.

I'm currently on a 400 BB bankroll for 0.25/0.50. My first 300 hands went really fantastic, I earned 10BB/100 hand. Then in just one hour, I guess in about 80 hands, I lost all my earnings, and I'm now at -10BB. All the time someone hit 2-pair or trips against my AK etc.

Low-limit games are often filled with people who will call you down all the way to the river no matter what - any thoughts about this concerning 6-max in regard to what strategy to apply?
12-06-2005, 01:45 PM
chardrian

I have always been a better 5 or 6 amx player than a full-ring player. Maybe it's cuz I like to play more hands.