6 max is better because...
 

I find I do a lot better on 6 max tables than full ring. I don't think the players are much different, but I think there is a mindset out there in a lot of players to lower their playing standards in a 6 max game. They feel they need to play more hands and call and bluff more, and you get a strange mix of weak calls and dumb bluffs that you don't find as much with the same players in a full ring game.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I think the average fish becomes even fishier at 6 max tables.

Re: 6 max is better because...
 

...you get to go through 400 BB downswings?

Re: 6 max is better because...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I find I do a lot better on 6 max tables than full ring. I don't think the players are much different, but I think there is a mindset out there in a lot of players to lower their playing standards in a 6 max game. They feel they need to play more hands and call and bluff more, and you get a strange mix of weak calls and dumb bluffs that you don't find as much with the same players in a full ring game.

So I guess what I'm saying is, I think the average fish becomes even fishier at 6 max tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't get what you're saying. so...you're saying they are different?

and also, aren't you supposed to do all of those things that you wrote out that the "fish" do? lower your hand requirements (less risk of a better hand being behind you), bluff more (less people in the hand means the people involved are less likely to collectively have a good hand in there), and call more (the value of hands go up short handed, but you don't want to fold out the nothingness that tends to be floating around).

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

i sux at 6 max?

Re: 6 max is better because...
 

yeah I think you would suck.

most players seem to assume this maybe thats why I'm finding it so easy.

Re: 6 max is better because...
 

maybe u r just running good rite now?

Re: 6 max is better because...
 

What are the basic strategy starting hands for six-handed?

I assumed it would be about the same as late MP standards in a ring game, but I don't know if I'm just assuming that or if the pot equity numbers work out that way.

Also my sense is that calc is right. I assumed it was because the higher variances put more players on tilt, but if these players say to themselves, "Goody, I get to play looser here," it's easy to imagine that they click down two standards instead of one.

Re: 6 max is better because...
 

[ QUOTE ]
yeah I think you would suck.

most players seem to assume this maybe thats why I'm just running good right now.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

Re: 6 max is better because...
 

check out the sticky threads in ss shorthanded forum. loads of good info there.

Re: 6 max is better because...
 

[ QUOTE ]
What are the basic strategy starting hands for six-handed?

I assumed it would be about the same as late MP standards in a ring game, but I don't know if I'm just assuming that or if the pot equity numbers work out that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm only starting to learn 6-max, so take anything that I say with a grain of salt!

There is one thing that I have learned that I didn't realize before - with the increased frequency of the blinds, there is a slightly greater urgency to get involved in pots.

I used to think that I could play the exact same strategy as my full ring game pretending that the first 4 players just folded. So if I'm UTG in 6-max, I play like I would in a 10-handed game if I was MP2 and UTG through MP1 had folded. Or if I was the Button in a 6-max game, and UTG folded, UTG+1 raised, CO folded, then I'd play as if it was 10-handed with UTG+1 through MP2 folding, MP3 raising, CO folding and action to me.

But that's not quite true. Why? Because the blinds come faster in a 6-max game, and you are theoretically paying more per hand to play in 6-max game. In a 10-handed game, with a half-small-bet/full-small-bet blind structure, you see 10 hands per orbit, and pay 1.5 SB per orbit to do so. In the long run you are theoretically paying 0.15 small bets for every hand you play. So every time you fold preflop, it is theoretically -0.15 SB of negative EV (again, this is long term) In 6 max, you only see 6 hands per orbit, but still pay that 1.5 SB per orbit. So each hand you see costs you 0.25 SB, and each preflop fold costs you -0.25 SB in negative EV.

So there is some adjustment in needing to open up a little bit from your standard "late position starting strategy" in a full ring game.

Now, as for how to actually do that - I'm not the guy to ask! Like I said, I'm still learning! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] The short-handed forum is better for those specific strategies.

Re: 6 max is better because...
 

OP, you're dead wrong. If you play an 18/13 style at full-ring, would you play 18/13 at 6-max? What about HU? The optimal style at 6-max is necessarily looser than at full-ring. What happens a lot of the time, though, is that players over-adjust and become too loose, or too aggressive.

SixForty, if you ignore bunching, then 6-max is the same as full-ring with the first four players folding, at least in terms of game structure. Where it differs, though, is that the table texture is so much more aggressive. Full-ring players tend to be much nittier than 6-max players, so when you get popped on the turn, hands like top pair don't look so good anymore. But in 6-max, the range of hands that players will pop you on the turn with is so wide, that you should be 3-betting top pair for value a lot of the time.

Re: 6 max is better because...
 

[ QUOTE ]
SixForty, if you ignore bunching, then 6-max is the same as full-ring with the first four players folding, at least in terms of game structure. Where it differs, though, is that the table texture is so much more aggressive. Full-ring players tend to be much nittier than 6-max players, so when you get popped on the turn, hands like top pair don't look so good anymore. But in 6-max, the range of hands that players will pop you on the turn with is so wide, that you should be 3-betting top pair for value a lot of the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I realize the changes postflop - there's a lot of differences because the hand ranges that you put people on are wider due to the aggressive nature of the game, as you said.

I was just responding to the one poster's comment about starting hand strategy.

Do you seriously play the same preflop game as full ring with the first four players folding? I wouldn't have thought the "game structure" is technically the same for the reasons that I stated in that previous post. A higher frequency of the blinds forces you to get involved more often. But in a 10 handed game where the first 4 players have folded, if that situation happened a hundred times in a row, you can throw away more marginal hands because the blinds don't force you to get involved as often.

Am I thinking wrong about that?

Re: 6 max is better because...
 

If we ignore bunching, and we take a set of full-ring players, put them in a 6-max game, and assume they play the same from the same positions (same position means, relative to the button, not UTG = UTG), then yes, you should play the exact same way as if the first 4 people folded.

When I did play 6-max, I did not play the same starting hands, but that's because I wanted to attempt a LAG strategy. So that's irrelevant to this discussion.

I think you're thinking about it in the wrong way, though. Let's say my UTG raising standards are 77+, ATs+, AJo+, KJs+, KQo+ (which is what they are for mid-stakes), then would you suggest I raise those same hands UTG in a 6-handed game? I'm pretty sure a lot of people believe 66, A8s, KJo, QJs, as well as some other hands to be plenty raisable in that situation. Not surprisingly, this is about what I open-raise with in MP.

One of the reasons you can open-raise with more hands in LP than in EP, is because there are fewer players behind you to act, so less chance that someone has a better hand than you. This is true for MP in a full game, as well as UTG in a short game.

Here's something that I think is related to what you're thinking, but I'm not sure if I'm explaining it well. Let's imagine a normal game, except that you, for some reason, don't have to pay the blinds when it comes around to you. To be a winning player, you could just play AA and fold everything else, and you would show a profit. To be a breakeven player, you could play zero hands.

Now, let's say you have to post one of the blinds every round, but not the other. Let's say it's the BB, so now we're losing 0.5 BB every orbit. Now, you'd need to play enough have to earn 0.5 BB every round, to breakeven. Now we throw the SB in. You're now losing 0.75 BB per orbit.

So when you say that you're "forced" to play more hands, I guess it's arguable that that is correct, if you define it as the necessary number of hands you need to play to be a winning player. Another thing that's missing is that short-handed, you have more equity in the blinds. Short-handed players lose less in the blinds than we do. Also, your EV for a given hand, let's say AA, is different in a full-ring game, as compared to short-handed.

But the discussion should revolve more around what's the optimal strategy to maximize your EV, and it would be pretty close to the same for full-ring with 4 folds, and short-handed. There would need to be some slight (probably negligible adjustments) for bunching, as well as some adjustments made for the other players.

Preflop adjustments need to be made because of the postflop play of your opponents, as well as postflop adjustments. For example, in full-ring, you tend to have more fold equity in a blind steal situation, as people are tighter. As a result, you can steal with certain marginal hands that require FE. Hands like A9o are plenty powerful no matter how the blinds play, but hands like 87s, and A2o, 22, to some extent, usually require a little more fold equity to be profitable.

Re: 6 max is better because...
 

Calc,
I like this post. And I really hope you will never post anything like "I suck in poker" or "WTF? How come I keep losing to all this fish?" or "300bb down. What am I doing wrong?" Keep being optimistic!

Re: 6 max is better because...
 

[ QUOTE ]
But the discussion should revolve more around what's the optimal strategy to maximize your EV

[/ QUOTE ]

Dazarath, I must thank you immensely today. I've been thinking about this all day, and sort of realized where I was thinking wrong. And that one line of yours really hits it home. It sums up exactly where my thoughts and my realization process was going.

Sort of an epiphany! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Basically, my way of viewing it was more of a "how can I best avoid losing situations". Almost a "trying to minimize -EV" philosophy. When I should really be trying to think of "trying to maximize +EV"

When I have 3 people and two blinds behind me to act, with 1.5 small bets in the pot, then you are right, it shouldn't really matter how I got there. Whether I'm UTG in 6-handed, or the first 4 people folded 10-handed, my EV for that hand should be the same. And I should play it the same.

(With the whole concept of "an urgency to play because the blinds come around quicker", I think I was bringing in some of my tournament strategies to a ring game when they shouldn't really apply here in the same manner. Urgency in a tournament is different than urgency due to blind frequancy. Sorry about the confusion)

But in realizing this, the biggest thing is that I've realized my late position play in a full ring game can stand to be a LOT more aggressive. I should be looking at it the other way around. My play from MP2 in a full ring game when 4 people fold should match good UTG opening strategy from 6-max.

I guess a lot of my opening strategy from later position in full ring play has been suffering due to the fact that I didn't feel I had a sense of urgency because the blinds don't come around as often. But now I realize that the frequency of the blinds shouldn't even really effect my play at all here.

So I think it's time for me to get more serious about playing some 6-max, and then head back to my full ring games and implement my new found experiences into that play.

Thanks Dazarath - you've made me re-evaluate a whole section of my game that I always though was good, but now realize can improve probably a whole lot more!

If we ever sit down at a table together, drinks are on me for the evening!

Re: 6 max is better because...
 

I've just started getting into the 6-max games as well. Ed Miller has a few good articles on his website on shorthanded games. It should help clear things up.

http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/a...s/article7.htm

Re: 6 max is better because...
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've just started getting into the 6-max games as well. Ed Miller has a few good articles on his website on shorthanded games. It should help clear things up.

http://www.notedpokerauthority.com/a...s/article7.htm

[/ QUOTE ]

Dazarath helped take the blinder off one eye - you just helped take the blinder off the other one!

Thanks!

(Soon I will be crushing these short-handed games! (insert maniacal laughter) [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] )