What is the real benefit of 6max Limit Hold'em?

[Norb]

This question might sound ridiculous to most of you but it's the essential question that I'm asking myself at the moment. I'm playing Hold'em now since about two years. I started playing full ring Limit, moved then to short handed Limit (6max) and started successfully playing short handed NL in the meantime.

Whereas I succeeded playing full ring Limit and short handed NL in the micro/small stakes, short handed Limit is a thing that drives me crazy! I don't lose but I also don't win. It goes up and down, up and down and I can't get any edge.

It costs me the same attentiveness playing simultaneously two full ring Limit tables than playing one 6max Limit table but I make really a lot more BB/100 on the two full ring tables. Therefore I get more and and more doubts, whether it makes any sense playing 6max Limit. I don't want to demonize this short handed Limit game at all because at least it improved my skills a lot and with this additional knowledge I gained a lot more at the full ring tables and this knowledge is even useful for playing NL but that is the only benefit for me.

I'd like to discuss this point wit you and I like to hear about different points of view. Maybe somebody has a clue what my problem is.

Thanks for discussing this with me!

PS: please excuse my 'German-English' ;-)

[istewart]

Well the benefit is that if you are good, there are more hands per hour and more decisions per hour, so more money is to be made. Also, while I haven't played full ring in quite some time, I would have to imagine that the bad players still flock to 6-max - so the player quality can be worse. The converse of this is that usually the best players are also playing 6-max, but that shouldn't dissuade you.

Most of us here find online full ring to just be really boring. Two years ago, everyone said that you should play 6-max because as you move up in limits, all of the games are shorthanded. Now, even at the lowest limits, the large majority of the games are shorthanded. So it's also a function of game availability.

[Oink]

What stakes have you been playing?

To be honest I believe that low stakes 6max LHE like 1/2 to 3/6 are fairly tough to beat because of the rake. At even lower limits there is enough idiots for you to beat the rake and at higher limits the rake lowers substantially.

People banging their heads on the wall playing 1/2 6max should really consider alternative ways of gaining the bankroll to play 5/10+.


It seems to me that beating NL25 is pretty easy. Even multitabling 6-8 tables I'd say that a good player can crush those games for as much as $3-$4/100 hands including rb etc. Considering this I would play NL25 instead of LHE 6max 0.5/1 anyday as it is simply so much easier to extract money from.


If I started out again tomorrow with a $500 roll I would grind NL25 til I had $1k, then NL50 til I had $3k and then take shots at 5/10 6max - moving back to NL50 if I lost 1k.

IMO you dont play small stakes to win money to spend. You play small stakes to build a roll so you can start playing medium stakes and then really learn to play and REALLY make some money. Unfortunately I didnt realize that untill after banging my head to the wall playing 300k hands of 1/2 to 3/6 [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[Norb]

One thing I forgot is the huge difference in the resulting rake. In case of full ring Limit games, the rake is quite acceptable at all major online Casinos but if I play 6max Limit, most of my income goes to the game provider. There is no other form of Hold'em that is suffering that much by the high rake amount than short handed Limit.

[Norb]

[ QUOTE ]
Considering this I would play NL25 instead of LHE 6max 0.5/1 anyday as it is simply so much easier to extract money from.

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel like you are taking the words out of my mouth! It's exactly the same conclusion that I've made so far.

[Fadook]

Full ring has become so much nittier than it used to be. Even at micro-limits you'll see lots of games with an average 30% of players seeing the flop and 4-5 BB average pots. All the bad players seem to have flocked to shorthanded nowadays.

The problem here, and a possible reason for your frustration, is that many of the bad players at 6max are LAGtards as opposed to the bad full-ring player who is typically loose-passive. While the LAGtard's strategy is still deeply flawed, it's closer to optimal in a shorthanded game than it is as full-ring. So things are naturally going to be much swingier, and you just have to try and adjust.

[jr4284]

[ QUOTE ]
If I started out again tomorrow with a $500 roll I would grind NL25 til I had $1k, then NL50 til I had $3k and then take shots at 5/10 6max - moving back to NL50 if I lost 1k.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really take shots with only 300 BBs in the roll? I feel like a BR nit now. I almost always wait until i have like 500 BBs for the next level before moving up.

[xerber]

When you play low stakes 6max LHE you have to use all the good sign-up bonuses you can get, no matter how small they are.

Rakeback is nice, but not high enough for those stakes IMO.

I started my 6max journey at .25/.5, now i´m (almost) at 2/4 and have played so far with an effective rakeback of nearly 100%(no joke), because of all the bonuses.

[Oink]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If I started out again tomorrow with a $500 roll I would grind NL25 til I had $1k, then NL50 til I had $3k and then take shots at 5/10 6max - moving back to NL50 if I lost 1k.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really take shots with only 300 BBs in the roll? I feel like a BR nit now. I almost always wait until i have like 500 BBs for the next level before moving up.

[/ QUOTE ]

I play with a 1000BB roll.

But since you want out of the rake trap as fast as possible I would advice you to take optimistic shots with a small roll. Taking 100BB shots with a 300BB roll is no problem if you have some limit you can be to fall back on.

[mattnxtc]

Sounds like I need to be playing more limit and what not get to get somewhat of a br back for 5/10...

Is the rake really that bad at 3/6? Thats just crazy to think about.