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

[Robin Foolz]

[ QUOTE ]
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]

[/ QUOTE ]

oink i think you raise valid points; however, i don't get why you recommend playing 5/T sh if your concern is rake (u say lower games are tough to beat cuz of rake). at many sites, the rake all the way to 5/T is still high as 2/4 -3/6 for example. is not until you get to 10/20 that the rake starts going down significantly. but again goot points.

[Apanage]

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are highly beatable and I would go so far that an expert player using good table selection can win 2+BB/100 at 1/2 to 5/10 while 3-tabling.

[ QUOTE ]
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]

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee I wonder why Mr.LAG?.

Seriously I think that playing 1/2 to 5/10 demands another approach than playing 10/20 and above. I don´t think playing 30/20 or 35/25 is an optimal approach to those games.And that is probably why we sometimes have different opinions about how to play a hand.
I would love to have the talent to play 10/20 but I know that my playing style is more appropriate for playing 3/6 and 5/10. Yours on the other hand is more suitable for playing higher stakes.But it is easier to learn mine and be a successful lowlimit player than to learn yours and be a successful mid-limit player.
I can guarantee OP that he doesn´t have to hesitate playing lowlimit 6-max.Because it is impossible to not win substantial money if you have an average brain and some willingness to study the game.
Sure the money pot is bigger at the higher stakes and you have to adjust your play, but I still think it is a good thing to play your way up to the 10/20 games since experience is everything in 6-max.

And if you can´t reach the high stakes it isn´t a bad thing to make 3000-5000 dollars a month (playing 80h) at lower stakes.It is an OK deal and it is very doable.

[Motorcycle Mike]

Apanage,

PM Sent...

2 quick questions for you though.

1. When you say playing 80h (this is 80 hours, right?) at low limits, are you talking about 3 tabling 1/2 or more like 2/4-5/10 to hit that $3-5K monthly mark? and

2. Given a $1200 roll to work with, what stakes/#of tables should one start out on?

[MitchL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are highly beatable and I would go so far that an expert player using good table selection can win 2+BB/100 at 1/2 to 5/10 while 3-tabling.

[ QUOTE ]
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]

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee I wonder why Mr.LAG?.

Seriously I think that playing 1/2 to 5/10 demands another approach than playing 10/20 and above. I don´t think playing 30/20 or 35/25 is an optimal approach to those games.And that is probably why we sometimes have different opinions about how to play a hand.
I would love to have the talent to play 10/20 but I know that my playing style is more appropriate for playing 3/6 and 5/10. Yours on the other hand is more suitable for playing higher stakes.But it is easier to learn mine and be a successful lowlimit player than to learn yours and be a successful mid-limit player.
I can guarantee OP that he doesn´t have to hesitate playing lowlimit 6-max.Because it is impossible to not win substantial money if you have an average brain and some willingness to study the game.
Sure the money pot is bigger at the higher stakes and you have to adjust your play, but I still think it is a good thing to play your way up to the 10/20 games since experience is everything in 6-max.

And if you can´t reach the high stakes it isn´t a bad thing to make 3000-5000 dollars a month (playing 80h) at lower stakes.It is an OK deal and it is very doable.

[/ QUOTE ]

3/6 and 5/10 can be absolutely destroyed using a 35/25 style assuming one is a capable hand reader.

[thepizzlefosho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are highly beatable and I would go so far that an expert player using good table selection can win 2+BB/100 at 1/2 to 5/10 while 3-tabling.

[ QUOTE ]
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]

[/ QUOTE ]

Gee I wonder why Mr.LAG?.

Seriously I think that playing 1/2 to 5/10 demands another approach than playing 10/20 and above. I don´t think playing 30/20 or 35/25 is an optimal approach to those games.And that is probably why we sometimes have different opinions about how to play a hand.
I would love to have the talent to play 10/20 but I know that my playing style is more appropriate for playing 3/6 and 5/10. Yours on the other hand is more suitable for playing higher stakes.But it is easier to learn mine and be a successful lowlimit player than to learn yours and be a successful mid-limit player.
I can guarantee OP that he doesn´t have to hesitate playing lowlimit 6-max.Because it is impossible to not win substantial money if you have an average brain and some willingness to study the game.
Sure the money pot is bigger at the higher stakes and you have to adjust your play, but I still think it is a good thing to play your way up to the 10/20 games since experience is everything in 6-max.

And if you can´t reach the high stakes it isn´t a bad thing to make 3000-5000 dollars a month (playing 80h) at lower stakes.It is an OK deal and it is very doable.

[/ QUOTE ]

3/6 and 5/10 can be absolutely destroyed using a 35/25 style assuming one is a capable hand reader.

[/ QUOTE ]

esp 5/10 where the rake isnt much of a factor. People don't know how to adjust below 10/20 for that kind of aggression, and for the most part they dont hand read. So their reactions tell you what their hand is frequently, but they really struggle to know where you are.

I really didn't start beating 5/10 consistently until I learned how to open up in position against the TAGs and LAGs.

[Oink]

Apanage

My small stakes career can be spilt up into two parts.

Playing 25/18 like the Mbenhoe chart and sucking. Lifetime I was a loser up untill 1/1/2007.
Then I loosened up and it took my 6 months to reach 15/30 from 1/2.


Please see my other post where I post results showing that all the LAG hands that NO ONE can turn a profit from in small stakes are profitable. And even significantly so statistically.

Funny enough this is using a db where 85% of the hands are 5/10 and below....


I am sure you do well. I am sure you are a bright man.

But you do come of as an idiot whenever you make conclusions regarding the unprofitability of the plays you dont make.

Its like me saying AA is unprofitable UTG and I have been folding it all my career because the fishies just dont respect my raises.

DUCY?

Cliff notes to make sure you understand the important part

I HAVE EMPRIRICAL RESULTS INDICATING YOU ARE WRONG, WHAT DO YOU HAVE?

[thepizzlefosho]

[ QUOTE ]
Apanage

My small stakes career can be spilt up into two parts.

Playing 25/18 like the Mbenhoe chart and sucking. Lifetime I was a loser up untill 1/1/2007.
Then I loosened up and it took my 6 months to reach 15/30 from 1/2.


Please see my other post where I post results showing that all the LAG hands that NO ONE can turn a profit from in small stakes are profitable. And even significantly so statistically.

Funny enough this is using a db where 85% of the hands are 5/10 and below....


I am sure you do well. I am sure you are a bright man.

But you do come of as an idiot whenever you make conclusions regarding the unprofitability of the plays you dont make.

Its like me saying AA is unprofitable UTG and I have been folding it all my career because the fishies just dont respect my raises.

DUCY?

Cliff notes to make sure you understand the important part

I HAVE EMPRIRICAL RESULTS INDICATING YOU ARE WRONG, WHAT DO YOU HAVE?

[/ QUOTE ]

gotta agree with this. plus I was never a big fan of the mbenhoe chart to begin with. I think you never learn how to play poker if you just raise based on a chart and never look at the table situation around you. Sure charts can give you some basic guidelines. But all of those marginal hands on the edge are +EV when played in the right spot (and you can add more in the right spots) and -EV if you just raise them because thats what the chart says.

[Oink]

This thread started out as "why play SH LHE"

And to respect OP I really think it should be kept there


But it pisses me off everytime we debate the preflop things that people start pulling claims out of there ass about which styles are optimal.

There is no way that anyone can know EVER!

Unless you play millions of hands using each style in the EXACT same game environment with the EXACT same players that play the EXACT same style over that sample.

Do this and then test which one is more profitable.


Seriously! Stop pulling out "facts" about optimal preflop play out of your ass.

The fact that you are a winning player doesnt imply you play optimally. It implies you play better than your opponents. Nothing else. NOTHING!

[thepizzlefosho]

in spirit of the OP. the value of playing limit, is that the variance makes you want to shoot yourself in the face. So then when you take a break and play NL it is like going on vacation because the donks just hand you money.

but seriously it is important to learn how to play 6max because there are few if any full ring games at mid stakes and up, and they quickly get invaded by good grinders. The fish who play midstakes all like to play 6max and gambool it up. So learning how to play shorthanded (HU, 3 and 4 handed as well) is really important in order to find good games above 3/6.

[6471849653]

There are good enough games for the non-US players, especially if one is playing them only at best times and picks tables. With a good rakeback/bonus deal the low limit games even from 2-4 to 5-10 are good enough for building experience and bankroll.

One should aim to finally play at 10-20, 15-30 and 20-40 (30-60 is supposed to be an another caliber, maybe because the ordinary people do not play that high), because of the rake and that they are not on regular bases comparatively all that much tougher.

If the US players get out of their ban, like the next year, those games will have more action than they have today, while the low limits at the EU sites might get tighter, but the middle limits will have more action, more tables, some richer hobby or less players on regular bases, more tables to choose from, multitabling - and that's where at least my experience tells me that limit holdem is better as the styles are more the same at limit but that's less so at nl that's additionally more of a people game.

Limit 0.5-1 when they were/are good I ended up playing seven or eight tables. At 1-2 when they were good at Stars I played three and four tables without it being a problem but Stars has a good software for multitabling. I think one loses more money multitabling nl than multitabling limit, but it's compensated by the factor that the rake factor is less of a problem at nl. Also the slowness of betting/action is compensated by there being less betting/action at nl.

Limit holdem full ring and shorthanded nl, maybe they have a similarity as for some experience that I have from shorthanded nl, it does make me think it looks like limit holdem full ring when the shorthanded game is solid (or generally too thinking about the mixture of rocks and unknowns at full ring limit games and think about the lesser amount of information at nl and its higher people game factors - though that as a word is what limit holdem is but that's another thing); when it isn't it's closer to limit holdem shorthanded that's my natural game so I might like the better action shorthanded nl games too; it's just not necessarily what they will most of the time be, and so maybe I play some four handed nl games somewhere in the future, though I don't see it would become popular though there are some of those tables too and one can create such tables, though they will not be like "regular" four handed games then but I suppose they would still offer better action. I will have to try them sometimes.

Many find the shorthanded games clearly more profitable than the full ring games but then there are some who don't make any more per 100 hands playing shorthanded. I have however made it absolutely clear to myself that the less players the more one makes, as long as the relative rake factors and the quality of player factor is the same. To me one shorthanded games is worth as much as two full ring games and I rather play two shorthanded games than four full ring games. I think it's also much about one's natural style, how well one does where ever one is at. Learning an another style of thinking or whatever is an arduous thing, like something unnatural, and I don't know if it's possible and it's often possible to pick whatever one does better at.

As far as speed goes, nl seems as fast as limit holdem when looking at the amount of hands one gets per hour. Then it's just about the fact that one makes less bets and calls at nl, there being more and earlier folding, but then one just gets that same money "faster" at nl, though I am just guessing but there are hard facts of results out there too.

There are far less limit games than there are nl games. One needs to compare the shorthanded limit games to full ring nl games if that's what one plays (they might at this or that site be similarly popular), but if one likes the shorthanded nl games, the things couldn't be better.