|
|
#1
09-03-2006, 02:03 AM
|
|||
|
|||
6 max is better because...
I find I do a lot better on 6 max tables than full ring. I don't think the players are much different, but I think there is a mindset out there in a lot of players to lower their playing standards in a 6 max game. They feel they need to play more hands and call and bluff more, and you get a strange mix of weak calls and dumb bluffs that you don't find as much with the same players in a full ring game.
So I guess what I'm saying is, I think the average fish becomes even fishier at 6 max tables. 
|
|
#3
09-03-2006, 03:19 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6 max is better because...
[ QUOTE ]
I find I do a lot better on 6 max tables than full ring. I don't think the players are much different, but I think there is a mindset out there in a lot of players to lower their playing standards in a 6 max game. They feel they need to play more hands and call and bluff more, and you get a strange mix of weak calls and dumb bluffs that you don't find as much with the same players in a full ring game. So I guess what I'm saying is, I think the average fish becomes even fishier at 6 max tables. [/ QUOTE ] i don't get what you're saying. so...you're saying they are different? and also, aren't you supposed to do all of those things that you wrote out that the "fish" do? lower your hand requirements (less risk of a better hand being behind you), bluff more (less people in the hand means the people involved are less likely to collectively have a good hand in there), and call more (the value of hands go up short handed, but you don't want to fold out the nothingness that tends to be floating around). [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] i sux at 6 max?
|
|
#6
09-03-2006, 01:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6 max is better because...
What are the basic strategy starting hands for six-handed?
I assumed it would be about the same as late MP standards in a ring game, but I don't know if I'm just assuming that or if the pot equity numbers work out that way. Also my sense is that calc is right. I assumed it was because the higher variances put more players on tilt, but if these players say to themselves, "Goody, I get to play looser here," it's easy to imagine that they click down two standards instead of one.
|
|
#9
09-03-2006, 02:11 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6 max is better because...
[ QUOTE ]
What are the basic strategy starting hands for six-handed? I assumed it would be about the same as late MP standards in a ring game, but I don't know if I'm just assuming that or if the pot equity numbers work out that way. [/ QUOTE ] I'm only starting to learn 6-max, so take anything that I say with a grain of salt! There is one thing that I have learned that I didn't realize before - with the increased frequency of the blinds, there is a slightly greater urgency to get involved in pots. I used to think that I could play the exact same strategy as my full ring game pretending that the first 4 players just folded. So if I'm UTG in 6-max, I play like I would in a 10-handed game if I was MP2 and UTG through MP1 had folded. Or if I was the Button in a 6-max game, and UTG folded, UTG+1 raised, CO folded, then I'd play as if it was 10-handed with UTG+1 through MP2 folding, MP3 raising, CO folding and action to me. But that's not quite true. Why? Because the blinds come faster in a 6-max game, and you are theoretically paying more per hand to play in 6-max game. In a 10-handed game, with a half-small-bet/full-small-bet blind structure, you see 10 hands per orbit, and pay 1.5 SB per orbit to do so. In the long run you are theoretically paying 0.15 small bets for every hand you play. So every time you fold preflop, it is theoretically -0.15 SB of negative EV (again, this is long term) In 6 max, you only see 6 hands per orbit, but still pay that 1.5 SB per orbit. So each hand you see costs you 0.25 SB, and each preflop fold costs you -0.25 SB in negative EV. So there is some adjustment in needing to open up a little bit from your standard "late position starting strategy" in a full ring game. Now, as for how to actually do that - I'm not the guy to ask! Like I said, I'm still learning! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] The short-handed forum is better for those specific strategies.
|
|
#10
09-03-2006, 08:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6 max is better because...
OP, you're dead wrong. If you play an 18/13 style at full-ring, would you play 18/13 at 6-max? What about HU? The optimal style at 6-max is necessarily looser than at full-ring. What happens a lot of the time, though, is that players over-adjust and become too loose, or too aggressive.
SixForty, if you ignore bunching, then 6-max is the same as full-ring with the first four players folding, at least in terms of game structure. Where it differs, though, is that the table texture is so much more aggressive. Full-ring players tend to be much nittier than 6-max players, so when you get popped on the turn, hands like top pair don't look so good anymore. But in 6-max, the range of hands that players will pop you on the turn with is so wide, that you should be 3-betting top pair for value a lot of the time.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
