6max vs. full ring

iheartponeez · #1 10-05-2007, 03:48 PM

I've read a couple of posts by people saying that moving to 6-max games made them more profitable players. Is there something to this? What's the benefit?

McGrain · #2 10-05-2007, 03:52 PM

It works for me because i'm pretty aggressive.

Aggression is getting more and more neccesary from earlier positions in my opinion - especially as far as unopened pots go.

I just find it easier to bully a 6 handed game. I've abandoned full ring games alltogether (but I keep my eye in as regards position in tournament play).

AbreuTime · #3 10-05-2007, 04:04 PM

In a twist on the above post, gamblers/maniacs prefer 6max over full ring, since you can play more hands. It is more profitable to play against bad players, and bad aggro people are my favorite. Also, it is "correct" to play more hands at a shorter table, so more decisions are made. Players have more marginal decisions to make, so smart /good players can make more money per hand.

McGrain · #4 10-05-2007, 04:08 PM

Abreu has made a fine point.

I myself get drawn into "oh sh*t" poker (calling when I feel i probably shouldn't be) against a guy making cool-headed re-raises.

You def need a series of gears to be succesful at these tables.

Leaving with your tail between your legs when a top man sits down at your table is also a fine skill to have in these games.

Let's not deny it.

RobTheDuck · #5 10-05-2007, 09:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Leaving with your tail between your legs when a top man sits down at your table is also a fine skill to have in these games.

Let's not deny it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an excellent - and rarely talked about - point.

Why would you want to play against 4 bad players and 1 good player when you could change tables and play against 5 bad players?

If your ego can't stand not being able to beat every player at every table at every game - get a new ego.

You don't have to be the best player in the world - you just have to be the best player at your table.

Ro$$ · #6 10-06-2007, 01:53 AM

and you can play the tracker and hud game of, how many 75/45/4 can i find at one table.

Foghatlive · #7 10-06-2007, 02:23 AM

What I never hear players talk about is the logistics of mult-tabling 6max vs. full ring.

While it's true that you play more hands with fewer players, 6max games tend to break up quickly as opposed to full. So, if you're multitabling 6max, a lot of your time is spent looking for games. Maybe some people can constantly scout games without their play being affected, but it certainly detracts from my play.

Muppet Man · #8 10-06-2007, 08:38 AM

I think that u have to beat full ring for a long time before you make the jump to 6 max.

Yes you have to be more agresive but also hand reading is more of a key skill in this game

you cant grind as much in 6 max aswell, your plays become more player depentant

What i am trying to say is if you are not crushing full ring dont jump to 6 max because it is a completly different game that is only for players that understand the key concepts of poker.

good luck

gedanken · #9 10-07-2007, 01:11 AM

I don't know about that. I had seriously plateaued at 9-handed, switched to 6-max and started making money again, very consistently. I think the main reason is just that 6max attracts the ADD gamblers. Also, I suspect, 9-handed was boring me, leading to suboptimal play.

Try 6 handed at a level or two below where you're playing. It might be fun!

pzhon · #10 10-07-2007, 03:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
You don't have to be the best player in the world - you just have to be the best player at your table.

[/ QUOTE ]You don't have to be the best player at the table to win. It is common for two or more good players to win from the bad players or single bad player.

If you have identified someone as a good player, this usually means you should avoid playing marginal hands in pots with him, as he won't make the mistakes required to make the hand profitable. In general, you should be more willing to play hands against a bad player.