ITH Poker Forum

[Gen_Del_Pilar]

In the past, I have always tended to scorn shorthanded tables as too swingy for my temperament - although I love 5-seat SnGs and maintain that, in this case, they definitely decrease variance.

Anyway, a poker contact of mine has recently moved up from 3-tabling full tables at $1/$2 to 3-tabling 6-max £1/£2 tables. He puts in 8-hour days, has been playing shorthanded for the last few weeks, and insists that he experiences less medium-term** swings than he did when playing full tables.

Now, maybe this can be explained by a worse standard of competition at the 6-max tables he plays at. That is, people failing to adjust to shorthanded play. Or... can his argument actually be applied in a more general sense? Have any of you experienced the same phenomenon, or would you continue to insist that swings tend to be more brutal at shorthanded limit games?

** Medium term as he considers it: 1 day, or about 1.3K hands

[reb]

Brutal swings in shorthanded games seems to be the general picture, though some observations seems to say the contrary, a few of those being a significant decrease in SD and that the best hand more often holds up than in fullring games etc..

[Wynton]

I suspect that your friend's experience might have something to do with his own style.

Personally, I have experienced pretty significant swings at the six-max tables at PS, where I play primarily. I'm doing pretty well there over the past few months, but over the course of a few sessions (1-2 hours at a time) I can really be on a roller-coaster.

[Gen_Del_Pilar]

I'm doing pretty well there over the past few months, but over the course of a few sessions (1-2 hours at a time) I can really be on a roller-coaster.

How about over the course of an 8-hour session (or a 1.3K hand block)? Do you find that you experience more or less swinginess than at full tables?

Of course, another factor that might be important is that you play more hands per hour at shorthanded tables. This might make it "feel" less swingy... which sounds cool to me!

[Wynton]

I'm doing pretty well there over the past few months, but over the course of a few sessions (1-2 hours at a time) I can really be on a roller-coaster.

How about over the course of an 8-hour session (or a 1.3K hand block)? Do you find that you experience more or less swinginess than at full tables?

Actually, I hardly ever play more than about 2 1/2 hours at a time (since I'm always sneaking these games in between work and family). Also, I do not multitable these short-tables. So maybe I'm not the best person to offer an opinion.

[fep]

Fellow forum member, Bugsbunny, who plays a lot of 5-10 6 max has indicated that the swings a brutal. I remember reading a post where he stated that at 2+2 short-handed forum down swings of 300 BB aren't even worth mentioning and 400-500 BB losses are what they commiserate over there.

[Gen_Del_Pilar]

I personally think that LAGs are playing more correctly short-handed and that taking them on can be a bit more swingy there, but the game is probably more +ev long term. Geo has posted that he thinks it is less swingy.

So, I guess there will never be a straightforward answer...

[geormiet]

I agree that the swings are less on a 6 max table than a full table.

[Gen_Del_Pilar]

Sorry Geo - only just read your relevant post in Poker Strategy.

That's the way it seems to me too... i.e., that over the course of say 15K hands, there could be a case for 6-max being more consistent than 10-max - presuming a similar relative skill level for each.

I'll give that contact of mine another week or two. If the wheels don't completely fall off his campaign by then, I'll proceed to give 6-max a very tentative shot!

[Wynton]

Perhaps it's just the short-term swings that are more severe. In the past 4 sessions at 2/4, I've finished up about 100 twice, down about that amount once and then down about 80. And these are not very long sessions either. Sure seems like big short-term swings to me.