What's different in sh tables from fr ? Is the variance also more higher ?
I noted that there aren't many fr tables , it's difficult to find 4 tables at limit 15c/10c if u r not in players peak time.
In my opinion sh has some bad sides that i don't like at all (at least for a tight aggressive strategy ) : there are less players , this mean less implied odds and considering that in omaha the implied odds are lower than hold em , it's not good , you pay the blinds more often and it's not good for a tight strategy ----> need to play more hands ------------> more marginal situations , more variance (already high ) . However ppl seems to like sh more than fr so on full tilt i can't find more than 2 fr tables :\ .
Notifications
Clear all
7 replies
Well, it's like in NL games. SH always attracts more fish. You have to loosen up and play more aggressive. Due to these things the variance gets bigger. But it's more profitable to play SH tables. But take your time on the FR tables to get confortable with the game.
Best regards,
TribunCaesar
what bankroll mangment is recomended for SH? , i tried to play this before joining here (soi hadn't read the omaha articles) with 20 BI , up to 30 , down to 20, then i stopped since it was obiusly too low.
50 ? 70?
I suggest to have at least 35 stacks. The higher you get in limits the more stacks you should have. But well, if you feel more comfortable with let's say 50 stacks then use a 50 stacks BRM.
best regards,
Tribuncaesar
I find FR boring in both Hold em and Omaha, when I play cash I like short sessions, maybe because I'm more a sng + mtt player. I have patience plaing full tables in those [at times] but just can't do it in cash. I don't even know why that is!?
In Omaha especially, I prefer SH tables. Good hands seem to hold up better, as with hold em.