Table size when starting out

[funneldave]

Hi all.I have been playing a little for 6 months or so now. I have been reading these forums for around a month and really enjoy learning about poker.
I have decided to start to try and build a bankroll and see how good I can be. I have read a lot of the posts here about starting out and have a reasonable idea of where to go, getting poker traker, bonuses etc.
I have one question which relates the table size when choosing a table. I am going to play NL cash games, starting at the small stakes. What size tables should I be looking at and why (eg is playing ABC poker generally more profitable at 6 or 10 seaters, etc).
Many thanks.

[Elandriel]

Starting out i would suggest 9- or 10-handed. Easier to use ABC-poker, smaller variance.

Not everybody would agree w/ me i think so wait for more reactions.

[The X-Factor]

Welcome to the forums!

It really depends on your style of play. I prefer 6 max games but that is me because you can play more hands. I would say for a beginning player such as yourself to try both types of tables and see which one you like the best and go from there. Let us know what you think and keep us updated on your progress.

X

[AbreuTime]

As you move up, I feel like it's easier to find juicy tables shorthanded (6max). The people that are action junkies and like to play hands tend to play shorthanded, and that makes it more profitable for a good player moving up. I am biased, because I play 6max, but I learned to play shorthanded because I was told "that is what the bad players play."

[swingdoc]

Interesting advice. I play both 9 max and 6 max tables at 200nl. I would strongly urge the OP to consider playing small stakes single-table SNG tournaments (5+0.5, 10+1). Here are my personal good, bad and ugly lists for each sized table.

6 max
Good: 1. More hands per hour per table
2. More of a chance to practice good/advanced post-flop play. Basically, the smaller the number of people, the larger range of playable hands. i.e. If I'm playing 3 handed, AJs is suddenly premium. 9 handed, I'm playing this for the BB, maybe for 1 small raise, depending on position.

Bad: 1. More hands/table/hour + small table size = tons more $$ in blinds

9 max

Good: 1. See far more free hands (7 vs 4 per time around the table)
2. Pre-flop play is much more important here. Great for practicing patientce and starting hand selection. Since pre-flop play is critical for good overall play, this is a great place to start.

Summary: If you're sure you want to play small stakes no limit to start with, I'd recommend 9 tabling at first, just so you're super-comfortable with pre-flop play. Your post-flop play also needs to be less precise here. To be fair, though I'm convinced that SNG tournaments are the best way to start. You get to play 9 handed all the way down to heads up. Blinds vary so you get to practice a lot of different plays. Variance is relatively small.

[funneldave]

Thanks guys. I am statring with larger tables to begin with and see where I go from there.
I dont really think SnGs are the way forward for building a bank roll at the start (for me anyway). The players may be weak, but you can go the whole tournie playing well then get sucked out on near the end and win nothing which can be pretty frustrating.
Grinding it out in SS cash games may be tough, but I think it is a more progressive way to build a bankroll.

[Poker Plan]

I would suggest sticking to the full ring (9-10 players) at the outset.

Good luck and welcome.

[hockeyplayer33]

I prefer 6max, but I will and have no problem playing 9to 10 handed tables. I think when some people just starting out, they will play full tables, and they get bored easily, and they may go on tilt after awhile of not getting any hands to play with, and start pushing in chips with nothing. My friend is that way, I will ask him why he played a hand the way he did, and his reply is, "I wasn't getting any hands, and I was getting sick of it." And my girlfriend will push chips in with nothing, because she was bored. But everyone is different. But when you play shorthanded certain hands become more valuable than in a full ring game, and you need to change your strategy accordingly, and also shorthanded I think better prepares you for playing heads up. Because you obviously cant just sit there heads up and wait for AA ya know. I know many tourneys lets say for example that its heads up, me and someone else, and they are sitting here folding pre-flop, folding to smallish bets on the flop, and there stack is dwindling down when heads up. I just think shorthanded people play more aggresivly, and we all know that aggresive poker is winning poker. But tourneys are different from cash games, you will probably never get heads up in 9 handed cash game.

[Spanky1974]

I suggest playing sessions of both all 9 handed and all 6 handed. I see nothing wrong with learning both as you go. Play a thousand hands at 9 handed, then play some at 6max. Sometimes the 6max games are soft, but I think a lot of begginers and TERRIBLE recreational players play the 9 handed, so both can be profitable. You also want to learn full and short handed play at the lower stakes, before you move up in stakes.

[Jim14Qc]

I'm actually playing NL200 FR and I'll be rolled for higher games in not that long. Any advice on what level to drop down to to learn 6max? There aren't many NL400+ FR games untill NL1k :X. I tried NL25 today on party and donked off ~20$ (sure that was in ~100 hands but still).