Would you make more...

[Dex]

...would you make more (winnings + rakeback) per hour 4-tabling $3/$6 full or 4-tabling $1/$2 6max?

Given that:
- when calculating your contribution to the rake, it's only divided by (at most) 6 at 6max rather than (at most) 10 at full
- players are weaker at $1/$2 6max than $3/$6
- more hands per hour at 6max
BUT
- bet sizes are only one-third as much at $1/$2 as they are at $3/$6.

Which do you estimate you'd make more per hour at?

[fundmyhabit]

3/6

[Recliner]

That depends on how many BB/100 you can beat each of the levels at, but if can beat 1/2 6 max to the point where you are making 2.5+BB/100 you should be able to beat 3/6 for a sizable amount that will earn more that 1/2 6m. So I'd say 3/6 and its not even close.

[playersare]

[ QUOTE ]
3/6

[/ QUOTE ]
...says the guy who plays $1/2 6-max.

kidding aside, the rakeback value of both scenarios would only be about the same on the party skins because they take a big chunk out of $5-12 pots at $1/2 LHE. four-tabling 3/6 full you'll probably earn $7.50/hr in rakeback (assume 100 raked each for $2 and $1 depending on pot size).

if you are a winning player with rakeback high enough to ignore bonus whoring, then might as well move up to whatever your BR and skill can sustain. however, chasing 10c flat reloads at $3/6 is still slightly more lucrative than 25% rakeback.