![]() |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
[ QUOTE ]
if 100nl is not a good game, then what games have you heard are good? I just stepped up to 100nl as well and am wondering what a good winrate would be. [/ QUOTE ] It's a good game, just not as good as 6-max. But they are different beasts, so beating them requires different styles. Full-ring is full of weak-tight players. You can win a LOT of money playing small-ball. But you can lose a lot of money betting POT, POT, POT with your AA out of position against a 12/8/1 player who keeps calling. Get what I'm saying? 6-max is full of action junkies. You can win a LOT of money betting POT, POT, POT (with the occasional check/call on the river) with your AA vs. some 33/8/1 guy who keeps calling. But you can lose a LOT of money trying to C/R-Bluff the same guy on the flop. In FR, you make money by picking up more than your share of pots, when no one else shows interest, and occasionally getting it all in the middle with your monsters when someone plays back at you. In 6-max, you make money by Value betting, value betting, value betting, and, oh yeah, betting vs. the calling station when you think you have a better hand. Having said that, in 6-max you will play many, many, many more pots per/hour than in full ring (putting aside the notion, for the moment, that you can 8-table FR, but only 4-table 6-max, etc), so you will get better at post-flop play faster than you would in Full-Ring. To put it another way, in Full-Ring, almost all your profit (and indeed, the vast majority of the pots you play) comes from the button, cutoff, hijack, and to some extent 3 off the button. So, in 6-max, you're practicing those positions. So, after say 50k hands of 6-max, when you sit in a full-ring game, against opponents who have played 50k hands of full-ring, you have a LOT more experience playing pots from those positions than they do. This gives you an advantage both when you are in position (they play sub-optimally against you) and when you are out of position (they don't use their position as well as they could). |
|
|