The Short Handed Tables are Looser

Results: 1.5 hours played; up $7

The short-handed low-limit tables on Casino.net are looser than the ten-handed tables.

After reading quite the last few days, I thought I'd give it another try this evening. I may have been tilting a bit after the group of losses (although I was trying not too), so the layoff was probably good for me. I wish I knew who wrote which part of Small Stakes Hold 'em so I could give proper credit, but thanks to Miller, Slansky, and Malmuth for the great book. I read a review that calls it "the Bible of the low limit game," and I'd have to agree.

I was a little more picky this evening with the table selection. I've noticed that the five-handed tables on Casino.net are generally looser than the ten handed tables. Normally, the ten-handed tables average around 40% players seeing the flop; the five handed tables (at low limits) average 70% and higher. Also, playing the short-handed games, the blinds come around faster so the bonuses should clear faster.

The table I chose was a five-handed $.25/$.50 table that was averaging 86% of the players seeing the flop; I'm sure that went down a bit when I joined the table. Although most everyone called the blind to see the flop, they would play tighter on a raise. There was a really reckless player (raising with 3c5d pre-flop and calling down all the way to showdown), but most were just careless pre-flop. It was a slow and steady grind, but that's much better than what I've been seeing on the full tables lately.

I'll give it another try in the next couple evenings to see if the play is similar. Maybe I can clear this $70 after all.

posted by Kent @ 7:50 PM