any difference in play between 6 handed and 9 handed tables?

[petp_the_greek]

any general rules when playing 6 handed vs. 9 handed tables online? what are the differences (if any) in play? which do u prefer? are more people better or worse or the same?

apologies if this is a noob question

[SaErDnaW]

You can play as the three first players after the blinds have folded. That means that there is no early position, and you have to adjust accordingly. Starting hands that you normally don't play UTG in a 9- or 10-handed game is often ok to open with in a 6-handed game.

Since you will post the blinds more frequently, you will have to play more hands than in a 9- or 10-handed game.

A passive play is almost always a bad thing, so a increased aggressiveness is a key to success in a 6-max game. Your opponents will play more hands, and often worse hands than they would in a full-ring game. So would you too, so you will have to be a good hand reader as well, to know when you are ahead or not.

Don't play extremely loose either, just open up with a wider range of hands. Don't be extremely aggressive either, you must use your judgement.

Many players seem to adjust a little too much when they try the 6-handed games. I think you should apply changes gradually. See what works.

There are good and bad players both in full ring and in 6-max. Maybe it's a little more bad players in the 6-max games, since many players don't know how to adjust to the games when they are used to full ring. The increased aggression and more hands per hour, often draws bad maniac players looking for action. Those guys are your friends :-)


I have played both full ring and 6-max, both NL and FL. I prefer 6-max.

Hope this is for any help.

[bigmac366]

6-max is the same as full ring without the early position seats. thats it. most people, myself included, over adjust when they first start playing 6 handed.

oh, and the fish like 6 max more!

[Fermion5]

full ring has more people seeing the flop right? so that's why there is less aggressiveness because it's harder to bluff in multiway pots?

also, what is it I hear about set-mining in full ring? is that just a fancy way of saying you want to hit the flop big in a multiway pot?

[gotmarc]

[ QUOTE ]
full ring has more people seeing the flop right? so that's why there is less aggressiveness because it's harder to bluff in multiway pots?

also, what is it I hear about set-mining in full ring? is that just a fancy way of saying you want to hit the flop big in a multiway pot?

[/ QUOTE ]

You have to be more aggressive in 6-max because it's more expensive to play. In a 9 handed $1-$2 game the forced blinds mean it costs $0.33 per hand. In a 6 handed game it costs $0.50 per hand. There is also less hands out there against you.

Set mining refers to playing small pocket pairs. Say you limp in with 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]5 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] UTG. Someone raises three times the big blind. YOu want to call, assuming the stacks are big enough.
What you really want to do is hit a "set"(conceled three-of-a-kind) on the flop. This happens about 1 in 8 times. So obviously if a guy only has 7 big blinds in his stack it's not worth calling a raise to go up against a hand like K [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]K [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] or A [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img].

And as the saying goes, no set no bet. What I've noticed, at least at the lower stakes, is people love to slowplay their sets. There are times to slowplay, but in a raised pot. . . if a guy raised before the flop with aces he'll probably re-raise your bet with aces. Your 5 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]5 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] would do much better on a board of A [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] 5 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img] than on a ragedy board of 2 [img]/images/graemlins/heart.gif[/img]4 [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]9 [img]/images/graemlins/diamond.gif[/img]. If you check raise he'll start thinking: Oh no. What have I gotten myself into? Or worse yet he'll take the freecard.
When there's an ace on the board the next card always has the posobility of making someone a straight. You really don't want to slowplay there especially with many people in an unraised pot.
If the pots not raised on a raggedy board, you should probably let your opponents catch up depending on how the board looks. Obviously you don't want to let him catch up if there's an ace because if he has an ace your hand is valuable, but vulnerable. You also don't let some one catch up on a Q [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]J [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img]10 [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] board.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

Since you will post the blinds more frequently, you will have to play more hands than in a 9- or 10-handed game.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have to be more aggressive in 6-max because it's more expensive to play. In a 9 handed $1-$2 game the forced blinds mean it costs $0.33 per hand. In a 6 handed game it costs $0.50 per hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bad argument. It is a very common one, in both cash games and tournament play, but it is wrong. You should play whatever hands are profitable, and the amount you expect to make with a hand when it is folded to you in middle position is hardly different when 4 people have folded at a 9-handed table instead of 1 player at a 6-handed table. You don't have to play more hands. You just skip early position where you ought to play quite tightly.

There is a tiny effect from the fact that the hands that were folded were not random. This is called the "bunching" effect. An article in this month's 2+2 Internet Magazine confirms that the bunching effect is very small, and most players ignore it.

In practice, there are some differences because different groups of people play. Many casual players who like action prefer 6-max. When you are playing against bad players, you can usually play more loosely, since marginal hands become slightly more profitable.

In practice, in full ring games, you might gain most of your advantage from punishing players who limp with weak cards in front of you. In low stakes games, playing tightly and straightforwardly may be enough to profit against these players. There isn't as much of an opportunity for your opponents to limp in front of you with weak cards in shorthanded games, so you should look for other weaknesses. One is not playing blind defense situations well, and to exploit that, you should attack the blinds oftem.

Many players don't understand position. They think it takes a weaker hand to raise shorthanded than in full games. On average, the raising hands are stronger in full games, but that is because you need a strong hand to raise in early position, or after early position limpers. Since early position does not exist at a shorthanded table, the typical raising hands are weaker, but they shouldn't be any weaker than when early position folds in a full game. In theory, you should raise with a wide range in late position when everyone in front of you folds, wheher early position exists or not. In practice, you can actually be more aggressive in full games since your opponents are less used to blind steals, and are more likely to give you credit for a stronger hand, such as you would have when raising from early position.

[SaErDnaW]

Yes, of course playing more hands just to play more hands is not exactly what I meant. What I really meant is that the early positions are gone, and the tight play that comes with the worse position is changed. I figured the OP is more used to full ring play. I also assume that he has got a nice hand chart for playing tight in early position and looser in later. I wouldn't play as tight UTG in a 6-max game as I would in a full ring game. That's what I meant. Also consider that the orbits are smaller, so the position changes very quickly in a 6-max game.

I am not defending my answer or suggesting that you are wrong. I just felt the need to explain better what I meant, since it wasn't very clear.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Since you will post the blinds more frequently, you will have to play more hands than in a 9- or 10-handed game.


[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You have to be more aggressive in 6-max because it's more expensive to play. In a 9 handed $1-$2 game the forced blinds mean it costs $0.33 per hand. In a 6 handed game it costs $0.50 per hand.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bad argument. It is a very common one, in both cash games and tournament play, but it is wrong. You should play whatever hands are profitable, and the amount you expect to make with a hand when it is folded to you in middle position is hardly different when 4 people have folded at a 9-handed table instead of 1 player at a 6-handed table. You don't have to play more hands. You just skip early position where you ought to play quite tightly.

[/ QUOTE ]
To elaborate on this, here is an article by 2+2 author Ed Miller which mentions this issue, in another context. Here is an excerpt, which I think is not excessive:

<ul type="square">
...when a 10-handed player wanders into a short-handed game, many come armed with the vague notion that they have to “defend more.” Usually the logic goes like this, “The blinds come around a lot more often, so each hand costs a lot more to play. If I keep playing tight, I’ll just get blinded out, so I need to start playing a lot more hands to compensate.”

That “logic” is severely flawed. As I demonstrated above, if everyone folds to the player one off the button who raises, it doesn’t matter whether the game started 10-handed or 6-handed. The hands you play depend only on the range of your opponents, not how fast the blinds “come around.”

The flaw in the logic is in looking at the blinds as a “price” you “pay.” You don’t “pay” blinds, as they aren’t dead money. They are live bets. And those live bets are worth relatively a lot more against just a few players than they are against a full table of players. So you do make many more blind bets in a short-handed game, but each of those bets has commensurately more value in the short-handed game, so the total “price” balances out.[/list]Ed Miller has elaborated on the last point elsewhere, although I haven't found that yet. Early position players should only be playing hands that are profitable. This profit comes at the expense of the later positions and blinds, mainly the blinds. So, in a shorthanded game, without the early position players, you should expect to get more back from the blinds you post. They aren't as expensive on average, so you don't have to win as much money when you are outside the blinds. You also get a larger share of the blinds' losses when you are in other positions, since you have more chances to play a hand like AT when no one will raise in early position, or will limp with a good hand in early position that will steal a lot of your value.