I’m pretty sure it’s the same thing whether you’re playing 9 handed and opening from CO and playing 4 handed and opening from CO. You’re only looking at the positions backwards starting from BTN, instead of forward. And playing the same ranges.

The mechanics and maths behind the situation is essentially exactly the same (you can argue there's some minute differences in terms of people folding affecting the card distribution but the difference is absolutely minute, essentially meaningless)

That is not to say you can't change up your strategy based on the assumption that your opponent will have emotional or illogical reasons of playing a different range, but it would be same as adapting to if you saw the players on the table were drunk, and thus deciding to open tighter. The mechanics of the game are still the same.

Okay this is just like, outrageous. A heads up cash game is a completely different game mechanically than a 3handed+ game, so obviously it's different. In headsup, the button is also the small blind, so it's inherently different than if it were a 3, 6, or 10 handed table where everyone folds to the button. On the other hand, the latter 3 examples are all essentially the same. Your hand value is exactly the same when it's folded to you on the button, whether it's 3, 6, or 10 handed.

I just don't get what you're saying. In 9 handed, if you're UTG, there are 8 more players to act, so obviously the chances of someone having a better hand is higher. But once the first 6 players have folded, why do you think the chance of someone else having a good hand is any different than if it were 3 handed to start? I feel like you need to brush up on your understanding probability. This is very close to gambler's fallacy.

hahaha.

I first saw this idea introduced in professional no limit. While it's an obsolete book, for the time it was published, it was a very solid book and introduced lots of great concepts, such as this one. Highly underrated book.

As I said, many of the concepts are too basic or reductive, but if you don't even have them down, then you're way behind on the curve.

I mean, this stuff is basic probability. I don't want to be mean, but you need to brush up on your math if you want to play poker properly. At least learn what conditional probability is. This is early-high school maths.

The chances of someone being dealt a pocket pair is higher 9 handed than 6 handed, but once you knew the first 3 players were not dealt a pocket pair, the chances of someone being dealt a pocket pair becomes the same.

Another way of looking at it: a single player being dealt a pocket pair is 5.8%. Let's say we're talking about the button. No matter if the first 6 players folded or not, had a pocket pair or not, the chances of the button being dealt a pocket pair is still 5.8%, it doesn't change.

PixieRust let me get this straight, you do not think starting hand values go up in short-handed play versus full-ring?

The value of a hand is based on position and not whether it’s short handed or full ring. Isn’t that simple common sense?

Like UTG 6-handed is same as LJ in 9-handed. Number of players doesn’t matter.

ya that's saying the same thing as starting hand values go up. i don't disagree.

I almost didn’t reply to this because your post itt have been solid and this doesn’t really matter when talking about opening ranges. Almost.

If players have had pocket pairs before us, our probability of getting dealt a pair goes up ever so slightly.

Again, this doesn’t really matter at all but, Oh boy, I love nitpicking.

And for 8o8:

Hand values do not go up when table gets shorter (excluding hu obv)

As an example if you are opening say 65% otb in a 9max game you don’t magically get to open like 85% just because 6 players left the table. You’d still open 65% but now you’re getting button much more often so you get to raise your 65% range 3times as much as in full ring setup.

1. I get 3 bet very infrequently which leads me to believe I’m not getting 3 bet light very often. Given that there is a 5% chance of a player having 99-AA+ AQ/AK, I should be getting 3 bet fairly often if people are 3 betting light. There is no way I’m getting 3 bet even 20% of the time when I open in the LJ, it’s probably closer to 10%.

2. I’m pretty friendly and good at getting people to show and I usually ask in 3 bet pots. People also love to show when they have aces in general.

They don’t mean the same thing. Hand values going up means you’re now going to open a particular hand OTB short-handed that you’d otherwise not open OTB in full-ring. That’s not true. You’re still going to open the same range OTB. So hand values remain the same, they never go up just because it’s full ring or short-handed.

Read what gettingood wrote too.

What momo said. Your starting hand value BY POSITION doesn’t change. CO when folded to in 9 handed is same as CO when folded to in 6 handed.

re getting good: I did refer to this effect, I think it’s sometines called “bunching”. I understand that the effects are so minuscule it essentially has no effect.

I don’t know if you’re confused because you think UTG in 6max = UTG in 9 handed. UTG in 6max should be compared to LJ (you count positions from the button), and when folded to, your hand strength should be essentially the same. In that sense, hands do not go up in value at all.

In what circumstance do you think hands “go up in value”?

If the first few players folded so the same number of players are remaining when action is opened up, yes it’s the same.

I would assume that 8o8 talks is meaning that hand values indirectly goes up in value because alot of people plays more hands= wider ranges becomes more appropriate. But that is true as mentioned from Pixie if we face a lag opponent in full ring too, thus i believe you guys are possibly talking besides eachother.

Hand values does not go up in short handed play from a strictly theory or mathematical point of view- more marginal hands like for eks K10 off or KJ off gets more value, but because alot people play more weaker hands than they do in full ring.

I don't know, felt like I made it pretty clear from the first post. Anyway, yeah you could adjust to it, but I think it's very important that people realise they are adjusting to different player tendencies not structural differences.

I also think people over generalise about people's tendencies. In my experience, there are more people who just have a set range they will stack off or play or not play (to the point of them not loosening up even when they should, like if they are facing button raise vs UTG raise), than those are are overly positionally aware and over adjust to short handedness. It's good to be aware of every bit of information available and maybe adapt slightly, but it's best to not over rely on any single piece of info unless it's extremely reliable for some reason (previous history/reads).

Reads are very useful, but I see many more situations where players use reads to justify bad plays than it helping make a better decision. A strong fundamental game is highly underrated.

Absolutely +1 on these things.