PNL & the Jocks vs Nerds issue

[Gonso]

I'll throw a vote in for anything 6-max thru HU, if you're going to cover NLHE cash at all. 6-max player may never sit at FR, but every online player will have to play a short table from time to time. UNless, you leave every time it gets short.

If you have a couple goofballs at the table and a few seats become vacant (and remain so for a while), are you going to leave these guys just because you're only 6 handed?

Plus, how much material do you need to cover playing the early positions in a FR game?

[NickMPK]

What is "Jocks vs Nerds"? I understand the rest of your post, but I don't understand the title of the post at all. Are you saying jocks play one type of game and nerds play another? Is this a common shorthand from one of the forums I don't read or something?

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]

What is "Jocks vs Nerds"? I understand the rest of your post, but I don't understand the title of the post at all. Are you saying jocks play one type of game and nerds play another? Is this a common shorthand from one of the forums I don't read or something?

[/ QUOTE ]

A lot of good NL cash game players, and most NL cash game pros, play 6-max. This is for several good reasons that I won't get into right now. However many players, myself included, prefer to play FR NL cash games.

This has lead to a dynamic, at least on this forum, where the "cool kids" play 6-max, and if you play NL cash games but you don't play 6-max then you're just not one of the cool kids. Further some 6-max players, at least the ones with little more maturity than your average 14 year-old pimple factory, are fond of making long and elaborate posts on why 6-max players are the best and most skilled players and how anyone who plays FR will never approach the skill level of a 6-max player. And of course the favorite place for these 6-max players to post their boasts and taunts is in the FR strategy forum.

I have observed that this is little different from the jocks vs nerds taunting and bullying common in high schools and jr. high schools. So far as I know I'm the only one who calls it this. I hope the name catches on, because I think it's particularly appropriate.

So when Matt & Sunny asked what readers wanted to see in vol II of PNL and several "jocks" said that they wanted vol II to be 100% 6-max, I made this tread asking them to make vol II more general but to then go ahead and write another book devoted entirely to 6-max. I believe 6-max deserves through treatment, but I think that vol II would be better if, like vol I, it is full of concepts that can apply to any NL situation.

[daveT]

You mean the same way that NL players think that they are better people for not playing Limit?

The people are all ignorant, there is not a huge gap between 6-max and FR, and not a huge gap between Limit and Capped NL games.

It is all poker, it's like cars, yes, some may want to drive a stick and others an automatic, some people like compacts and others like large cars, it's all driving, yeah, we may have to make adjustments, but cars like poker, just what one prefers is what one prefers and can show a lot about our selves and insecurities.

Whatever, I like all the forms of all the poker games, (excluding limit Omaha) and have the most love for heads-up Limit. Am I cooler or nerdier for it? It doesn't matter because I withdraw money, not deposit.

[Jeff76]

I play FR all the time, and you constantly hear things like "no one who plays FR is good at poker." and "six max is REAL poker".

I heard the same things when I was mainly a tournament player about cash games vs. tournaments.

No matter what, I fear I'm destined to be playing these "lesser" form of poker no matter what I choose.

I really hope there isn't a 6 max only book, nor would I want a FR book. The more generic the better, IMHO, because who knows what the latest "fad" will be in 5 years? A book that teaches principles that can be applied to most games is more beneficial in the long run than one which focuses on a small segment of what is popular today.

I once asked a good 6 max player why 6 max is more profitable, and he said "because that's where the fish are. If fish started playing FR more, there wouldn't ever be a reason for a winning player to play 6 max again." I don't have any experience to back this up, but it is a poster I respect (and also, it's the only answer that makes sense). If it is true, though, it just underscores the point that we need to be fully equipped to handle the changing nature of poker.

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
You mean the same way that NL players think that they are better people for not playing Limit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, exactly.

Speaking as a former limit specialist, many uninformed NL players read Super/System and latch onto Doyle's comments about limit players not having "guts." Frankly, I think it's much harder to play limit well consistently over a long period of time.

[daveT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You mean the same way that NL players think that they are better people for not playing Limit?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, exactly.

Speaking as a former limit specialist, many uninformed NL players read Super/System and latch onto Doyle's comments about limit players not having "guts." Frankly, I think it's much harder to play limit well consistently over a long period of time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I started playing Limit and know what you are thinking. I then dipped in FR NL, then 6 max.

Remember that the vast majority of players here aren't winning anything, and when they talk smack, they have no appreciation for the over-all game. When they say that Limit is easy, they probably never tried playing it. When anyone says that one form of poker is easier, they are insulting anyone who has spent years mastering that form of poker.

I could go on and on, but if one of the "cool kids" sits at you FR game, you will probably crush them.

[phydaux]

[ QUOTE ]
if one of the "cool kids" sits at you FR game, you will probably crush them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if they don't make the correct adjustments.

If the cool kid had read PNL vol II, and if PNL vol II is all about adjustments, then they will, and I won't. But of course if I have, then I will. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Oct0puz]

[ QUOTE ]
I made this tread asking them to make vol II more general but to then go ahead and write another book devoted entirely to 6-max.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can never fill a whole book with only 6-max concepts. As has been mentioned eariler many people have a hard time to realize that the concepts for FR and 6-max are almost indentical. The only big difference is PF and game conditions. Generally 6-max players are much looser even postflop.

And if you didn't know you play 6-max all the time in FR games. Every time the first four players fold only 6 players remain.

[BozMan82]

Short-handed situations definitely deserve coverage. Even when you try to play full-ring, there are always times when there are open seats (both live and online).

That being said, I hope Vol II covers other topics besides just short-handed/6-max. Knowledge about that is just part of being a well-rounded cash game player.

I think one of the co-authors previously indicated somewhere that Vol II will cover bluffing and c-betting in more detail. I'd like to see that examined in a wide range of scenarios (not just short-handed).