When I first signed up for stars, I asked where the short handed NL games were to support. I got a letter from Lee Jones, that didn't really have an answer I was satisfied with as to the logic behind not offering 5-6 handed games. Something about short game specialists and killing the action of the full games was the gist of the response.

While Stars doesn't offer a short handed game, I consider myself stronger against fewer opponents and have been seeking out short games. I've built a bankroll out of spare change and find my variance lower in short games, some yahoo can get lucky once, they may even get lucky twice but sooner or later they will not get rewarded from behind. Stars players may be the worse I've seen playing short, playing $90 pots at .25/,50 with top pair no kicker and the like.

They are so exceptionally bad that I've made a point to sit until it gets to 9 and then play to my blind and go find another table. Win or lose I've been getting up and moving on unless I have an exceptional reason to stay and play the endurance contest of a full game.

This strategy while I don't like the idea long term, is showing short term results usually adding $10-$30 to my account per game that was a month ago in the pennies. The biggest lose I've taken in the $50 .25/.50 game has been $4 since starting to seek the short games.

The thing I've been looking for is situations where the variance can't bust me, Two stacks at $20 or so and possibly one full stack, preferrably only three stacks of $20. I can take a lump from these guys at $50 and still be even plus a little in a single hand. It reduces the variance further of having a big pair played all in preflop cracked by 99 in a raised, reraised, reraised all in pot. Since they will play no kicker top pair hands like a set, there is a strong chance that AJ is good, and the shorter stacks make it more tempting to figure out how good their hand really is.

The draw backs... one of the stronger points of my game is developing a read, and manipulating that players tendencies to my advantage. Moving from game to game makes this tough, there isn't as much time to develop reads, and rarely does it take longer than 30 minutes to fill up. I take notes on players but I don't know how effective this will be, as I may not get to play them again. I generally like to get settled into a game, again the shorter time doesn't allow for this and I feel like I'm starting all over constantly.

The advantages,.. Stars low stakes players have the aggressive is good attitude and pick spots poorly to exercise the mantra. I get to rathole small wins, sometimes get to rathole big wins, either way I'm generally leaving with more than i sat with nearly every time. I am not making it a hard fast rule, so if there is an interesting opponent or two at the table, I can take full advantage if given the opportunity and play the full game. I'm getting FPP again, and a pretty decent amount for a .25/.50 game. The action is currently better than GC in a similiar game which is riddled with tight passive players. Tight passive players I have a break even game against, it is very hard to read a call as a made hand, and I want to protect against draws, and may over play good second best hands against them. Stars is definetly not tight and passive, but the semi-loose aggressive games that I excel at are bountiful.

Anyways I just thought I would throw out some of the thoughts and tactics I've been playing at a site that doesn't offer short handed games. Sorry if I rambled too much!

As someone who plays 6-max exclusively, I do agree that at the right tables, most players have the mindset of having to be aggressive and try to play nearly every hand, as a consequence I probably play tighter than most would recommend, but at an aggressive short handed table, other players looseness affords you this ability, they seem happier to call bets on every street with top pair no kicker, or trying to catch a set with 66 because 'it's not as likely that he has anything'..

Molina

lhe i like the short handed games but when im playing NL i often play the full games if im playing my regular 4 games (no like some i cant do the crazy multitable 12 table thing)
in nl so many decisions are player dependant in the short games that i like to stay away unless im only playing 2 games. anyone who does multi the short nl games i would love to hear from and how they handle the player specific decisions.

also unlike you i love to play against players with as much money on the table as me. not doing so may reduce variance but it also will reduce profits. the better decisions you make the more money you make and if your not all in on the flop thats extra decisions on the turn and the river to make. ofter people dont use their big stacks as well as they should so it dosent bother me.
anyhow if your a sh nl player you cant beat party right now. i dont know about the games your talking about but stars nl and limit for that matter are generally the best on the net imho
matty

I agree with you in general on playing with at least full buy in stacks, the site that is my regular one these are the games I seek, Stars I'm taking a different approach. I'm seeking games that people are playing above their level at stars right now, shorter stacks generally indicates that they are not comfortable with the game and my likely be a target for a good player. The larger blinds means I'm playing double blinds against people with half stacks, it allows me to play a level up with a full stack advantage to their half. I get to play $2 raises that are likely to get called against .10/.20 stacks.