[Closed] SH vs FR

I've been playing SH cash PLO for so long that I actually get into trouble when I go to some FR game. It just seems completely different.

If you play NLHE, I'd suggest you to take a shot at the lowest possible limit, like NL2 or NL5. You'll notice the difference instantly, even on the micros.

Here you have the guide that most helped me during this transition. It is public domain and the author made it available on 2+2 forum some time ago. I think he will make a book out of it.

http://www.4shared.com/document/afj2lFkT/2p2NL6max.html

It's in my own 4shared account, so don't worry ♠_biggrin:

Also... be ready to watch a ton of videos from hasenbraten. He explains the microstakes SH dynamics masterfully. GL.

FR is gay. Pretty much says it all.

I used to be FR nit. Then I learned SH. FR is easy now with my monkey aggro game.

No seriously, SH will teach you more in shorter period of time. It's also not so fucking dull as FR is.

Weird, I posted a longish reply in here and it gone.

Originally posted by pleno1
Weird, I posted a longish reply in here and it gone.

Cliffnotes?

Evolvement of poker
The speed of sh evoling in relation to fr
Importance of note taking/stats/hud/awareness of regs
Player types for both games

thanks for that link

Originally posted by brobz
thanks for that link

short hand is so much more fun, unlike dull FR where people only play with three aces in their hand

Hey!

Try not to pay too much attention to all the FR-antipathy. I'm a SH player myself but I can play FR too, and one is not better than the other - they are just different.

The difference you'll find is in the ranges of the opponents. They're usually loser in SH, making for (often) more marginal and tougher decisions, while potentially being very profitable.

However, don't let anyone fool you to think that SH is super much more profitable than FR. It's possible that the potential winrate in SH is higher, but that doesn't mean you or anyone else gets there ;).

I believe the reason people think that you improve easier as a player in SH is because it's actually harder to play SH.
Someone might get upset over this statement. But I think that FR players get stuck in a rut because they find a b/e to slightly winning strategy fairly easily and quickly, and start mass-multitabling much soon than SH players, which leads to them not making the effort to improve as a player. On the other side, new SH players constantly find themselves in marginal situations which they have to think about carefully - encouraging study and growth.

I think good FR players make excellent money. If you like FR more, you can certainnly become a good player quickly if you only put in the same effort to improve your game as you would playing SH - that means marking hands, posting hands, analysing hands yourself, etc. - even if you already think you're winning.

However, there's certainly nothing that prevents you playing both and I think there's an argument for it being easier to switch from SH to FR than the other way around. But if you want to get really, really, good at something, I'd pick one of the two.

Try them both and don't let all the negative comments about FR discourage you from playing it, if you like it more.

(its late, hope this post doesnt ramble too much)

imo FR is better money (for the thinking reg imo) and much easier to master+all games in my local casinos r FR

Originally posted by i5bet72o
imo FR is better money (for the thinking reg imo) and much easier to master+all games in my local casinos r FR

explain why FR is better money

Originally posted by i5bet72o
imo FR is better money (for the thinking reg imo) and much easier to master+all games in my local casinos r FR

You contradict yourself. FR is easier to master and that's exactly why it's not better money.

It's easier to master thus the differences in the skill will be smaller, players will be put to less tough spots, they are required less creativity and there's less money to be made by being smarter than your opponent.

Unless you want to spend most of your time looking for fish who would pay your ABC-syle off, go for the SH. That's where the poker happens.

better money doesnt mean better winrate, it means u can play more hands (cuz u can play more tables), and have less intense swings which means less tilt for tilthappy ppl like myself+u can really own the ABC regs in FR. If u play/see nl100-600 FR, it is certainly real poker. Some of the leveling wars+light 5bet shoves+postflop pwnage is poker at its best. There are certainly a ton of tough spots in FR. Altho a breakeven/marginal winning style is easier to master in FR, to pawn the small/mid stakes (FR) with a good wr its extremly difficult.

Im getting tired of FR, its not poker when everyone is just sitting around waititng for premuims, its extremely boring. I am watching/reading some Veerner tips from 2+2 then making the switch to SH. I am sure FR live is a better experience but online it can go str8 to hell

OK it seems you got this all sorted out

In the end its matter of taste. I find FR boring and I also don't like playing over 6 tables at the same time. Can't really make quality decisions when I have 4 seconds on average to play a hand. It seems that there's more automatic moves in FR.

I can agree that it is a matter of taste. In FR u still get alot of time for important hands, u just fold more hands preflop.