Winrate at 6 max...

[Stinkybeaver]

What is a sustainable winrate for a winning player on 6max:?


I'd also like to know why I can't convert my handhistories from pokertracker.?

[Isura]

I have no idea. But I'm 4.2 bb/100 over 15k hands. I think 4bb/100 is sustainable 2-tabling, but at that point it's more worth it to move up limits. Anything over 2bb/100 is very good for the long run.

[Niediam]

You might want to try asking in the HUSH forum...

At .5/1 5BB/100 is probably possible from what I have experienced - I'm not sure about 1/2 and 2/4.

[Stinkybeaver]

I could also ask which game offers the best winrate 6max or full table...?

Currently I'm doing ok a full, but I'd like to try 6max, but only if it is a better game in terms of winrate.

[Niediam]

Probably 6max but rememeber there is a LOT more varience so you need a bigger bankroll - around 500BBs should do.

[Stinkybeaver]

I've also heard that 6max offers the best winrate...

But I also think it is a harder game to learn..

[kapw7]

500BB is too much if we are talking about micros. The 1/2 games are easy, so it is unlikely to lose more than 200BB if you play solid. But add another 100BB until you actually learn how to play solid.

[Reqtech]

I've found 6 max to be more profitable....for me.

You're not going to know whether it's more profitable for you until you play the tables and learn how to play. It requires a lot more aggression in addition to making more decisions.

6 Max tables are where you can profit more from your opponents mistakes, since you'll be playing more hands thus more decisions/100.

You're not going to figure out much at all unless you jump in the pool. The water is nice and warm /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
I could also ask which game offers the best winrate 6max or full table...?

Currently I'm doing ok a full, but I'd like to try 6max, but only if it is a better game in terms of winrate.

[/ QUOTE ]

it depends on lots of factors, most importantly the skill level of your opponents vs your skill level at that type of game. I think there are more bad players playing shorthanded 1/2 at party than full ring, and I'm an ok shorthanded player, so for me sh is more profitable. there's also a lot more variance.


s

[droolie]

[ QUOTE ]
500BB is too much if we are talking about micros. The 1/2 games are easy, so it is unlikely to lose more than 200BB if you play solid. But add another 100BB until you actually learn how to play solid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I beg to differ....

I have found 1/2 6-max to be a grind. There are certainly a large % of terrible players there and winning at a very respectable rate is certainly attainable but it is a fundamentally different game and expected winrates should be adjusted (lower).

For one the blinds come around more often so you cannot be as selective without it costing you more. You will be putting money in the pot involuntarily a larger % of the time. You will also be playing worse cards OOP quite a bit. The pots are typically smaller (6-7BB at 1/2 6-max compared to 9-11BB at .50/1) so the expectation when you win a hand is lower. The fact that your starting hands will be weaker on average and the increase in bluffing and aggression will make you less sure when you are ahead a greater % of the time. These games are often down to three players so you are really guessing a great deal in thise situations which cab get real expensive. This is confounded by the fact that in a shorthanded game you rarely expect your good hands (TPTK) to lose but they seem to lose to utter garbage turning or rivering two pair with a high level of frequency. You wind up winning many small pots and blowing tons of BB's on big pots. The frustration level can be extremely high.

Losing 200BB can happen quite easily and quickly by even very good players. Though I admittedly suck, I have lost 100BB's in about an hour while 4 tabling and it was devastating emotionally. It felt like I was in the twilight zone.

The good thing is that the swings cut both ways. You see a lot more hands per table per hour and can dig yourself out of a big hole very quickly. I think the 6-max game could surely be a better game in terms of $$ per hour due to the higher turnover of hands and teribble players but I kind of doubt higher winrates are sustainable compared to party .50/1 winrates where huge pots and terrible players abound. You can sustain a high winrate at .50/1 by simply nutpeddling but at 1/2 6-max you have to work a bit harder. Reads are very important and outhinking your opponents and varying your play becomes critical. In short, it's a harder game to win a very high rate IMO.

[Buckmulligan]

[ QUOTE ]
500BB is too much if we are talking about micros. The 1/2 games are easy, so it is unlikely to lose more than 200BB if you play solid. But add another 100BB until you actually learn how to play solid.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[/ QUOTE ]

Na, the 1/2 6 max game isn't that easy. Even the donks use some pretty effective WA/WB and trap lines pretty often, and play pretty aggressively on the later streets, making especially turn play difficult (i.e. should you fire the second bullet with a missed hand like AQ).

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
I have lost 100BB's in about an hour while 4 tabling and it was devastating emotionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

you shoulldn't be 4 tabling 6 max, unless you are very good and crushing 2-3 tables. I've learned this lesson the hard way. situations are so read dependant that playing 4 tables is -EV for all but the best of us. I've cut down to 2 tables (even while bonus whoring) and the difference is huge. 4 tabling full ring = easy, 4 tabling 6 max = frantic

[milesdyson]

I agree with 2 tabling, especially to start off a session. Then, if you want, as you've developed reads on those players, add another table or two to get it up to 3 or 4 tables. Opening up 4 tables from the start is not a good idea - you'll be missing a lot of stuff you need to know to play closer to optimally (like knowing when people autoraise flop or bet every street out of position with a draw/busted draw).

As far as 1/2 6-max winrates go, mine over my first 15k is 2 BB/100, but I started out too loose preflop at like 31/21. Over the last 8k hands I've held a 3 BB/100 rate, and that's with 25/15 stats. I think I can hold the 3 BB/100 rate.

[droolie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have lost 100BB's in about an hour while 4 tabling and it was devastating emotionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

you shoulldn't be 4 tabling 6 max, unless you are very good and crushing 2-3 tables. I've learned this lesson the hard way. situations are so read dependant that playing 4 tables is -EV for all but the best of us. I've cut down to 2 tables (even while bonus whoring) and the difference is huge. 4 tabling full ring = easy, 4 tabling 6 max = frantic

[/ QUOTE ]

You are definitely right about that. I learned that the hard way too! I've been playing a lot of bonuses and have had to multi-table to get the hands in (I'm a bit stupid when it comes to my whoring sometimes) but I have vowed not to play more than 3 tables again until I get my mojo working. I usually vacilate between 2 and 3 tables but I certainly agree that I would be better off with just 2 all the time. I will try harder to stick to 2 when I'm not under time pressure for bonus clearing.

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have lost 100BB's in about an hour while 4 tabling and it was devastating emotionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

you shoulldn't be 4 tabling 6 max, unless you are very good and crushing 2-3 tables. I've learned this lesson the hard way. situations are so read dependant that playing 4 tables is -EV for all but the best of us. I've cut down to 2 tables (even while bonus whoring) and the difference is huge. 4 tabling full ring = easy, 4 tabling 6 max = frantic

[/ QUOTE ]

You are definitely right about that. I learned that the hard way too! I've been playing a lot of bonuses and have had to multi-table to get the hands in (I'm a bit stupid when it comes to my whoring sometimes) but I have vowed not to play more than 3 tables again until I get my mojo working. I usually vacilate between 2 and 3 tables but I certainly agree that I would be better off with just 2 all the time. I will try harder to stick to 2 when I'm not under time pressure for bonus clearing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, most players (especially with less than 10k hands experience) would be better off 1-tabling, atleast for the first 5k hands or so. There is a ton of money to be made if you learn to become a good short-handed player (just check out the UltimateBet HU high stakes games). /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have lost 100BB's in about an hour while 4 tabling and it was devastating emotionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

you shoulldn't be 4 tabling 6 max, unless you are very good and crushing 2-3 tables. I've learned this lesson the hard way. situations are so read dependant that playing 4 tables is -EV for all but the best of us. I've cut down to 2 tables (even while bonus whoring) and the difference is huge. 4 tabling full ring = easy, 4 tabling 6 max = frantic

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. Anyone able to 4-table the 1/2 6-max at a good rate (2bb/100 is very good) is ready to beat a much higher limit.

[Reqtech]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have lost 100BB's in about an hour while 4 tabling and it was devastating emotionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

you shoulldn't be 4 tabling 6 max, unless you are very good and crushing 2-3 tables. I've learned this lesson the hard way. situations are so read dependant that playing 4 tables is -EV for all but the best of us. I've cut down to 2 tables (even while bonus whoring) and the difference is huge. 4 tabling full ring = easy, 4 tabling 6 max = frantic

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll second this. 4 tabling full rings is just an auto-fold fest. 6 max requires playing almost twice as many hands, and at least 1/3 of your hands are in the blinds meaning at least that many more hands requiring something beyond robot-like decision making.

I'm 3-tabling 6 max right now, and it requires my full attenion. No chatting or web browsing for me, which is a good thing.

[MrWookie47]

To the OP: I ran about 3 BB/100 over my first 11-12k hands, but I just had about a 1k stretch of hands where I was running at about 20BB/100 that kicked me up to about 4.2 BB/100 over 16k hands. I got off to a pretty rough start (just like everybody), though, so I'm not sure what my my win rate might level off at. Maybe 3.5 or so. I've been playing mostly on Absolute, though, where the rake is lower than Party, so I probably wouldn't be doing as well over there. I'd say that 3 BB/100 is a reasonable goal to aim for, but be happy with anything greater than 0, especially while you're still learning.

I'm thinking about writing something up about getting started in 6max play that compiles a lot of what I've learned from my own experience, from working with another 2+2er new to 6max on his game, and from the forums here. If I do, it'll be up either at the end of this week or early next week. I figure it'll be good to compile a lot of this into one place. There's lots of good stuff out there, but it can be hard to find it all.

[droolie]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have lost 100BB's in about an hour while 4 tabling and it was devastating emotionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

you shoulldn't be 4 tabling 6 max, unless you are very good and crushing 2-3 tables. I've learned this lesson the hard way. situations are so read dependant that playing 4 tables is -EV for all but the best of us. I've cut down to 2 tables (even while bonus whoring) and the difference is huge. 4 tabling full ring = easy, 4 tabling 6 max = frantic

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. Anyone able to 4-table the 1/2 6-max at a good rate (2bb/100 is very good) is ready to beat a much higher limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you posted this. There seems to be a great deal of inuendo that 6-max is so ridiculously easy but it certainly isn't. I think my 4-tabling fiasco was born out of that incorrect assumption. It's pretty frustrating when you hear successful 6-max players state how simple 1/2 6-max is and that if you can't beat it like it it's your 'ho and it owes you money you're a helmet-wearing retard.

[Stinkybeaver]

Don't like the fact that it is no good multitabeling.

Then you would be better off playing 4 0,5/1,0 I guess.?

Anyways gotta learn it someday. But now I won't go off 4 tabling

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
Agree. Anyone able to 4-table the 1/2 6-max at a good rate (2bb/100 is very good) is ready to beat a much higher limit.

[/ QUOTE ]
I started off playing playing 6-max by 4 tabling 1/2 Party at a winrate of 3.4 BB/100 over 10k hands. Moved to 2/4 6-max at UB and Stars 4-tabling 6-max with 2 10-handed tables at the side at a win rate of ~2.6 over 10k hands. Sure, it's not a great sample size, but I felt I had pretty ok reads and control of what happened. i don't think you're playing so many hands you can't control 4 tables (putting 2 extra on the side wasn't too bright though). 4 tabling 6-max is like 6 tabling 10-handed IMO.

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have lost 100BB's in about an hour while 4 tabling and it was devastating emotionally.

[/ QUOTE ]

you shoulldn't be 4 tabling 6 max, unless you are very good and crushing 2-3 tables. I've learned this lesson the hard way. situations are so read dependant that playing 4 tables is -EV for all but the best of us. I've cut down to 2 tables (even while bonus whoring) and the difference is huge. 4 tabling full ring = easy, 4 tabling 6 max = frantic

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. Anyone able to 4-table the 1/2 6-max at a good rate (2bb/100 is very good) is ready to beat a much higher limit.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad you posted this. There seems to be a great deal of inuendo that 6-max is so ridiculously easy but it certainly isn't. I think my 4-tabling fiasco was born out of that incorrect assumption. It's pretty frustrating when you hear successful 6-max players state how simple 1/2 6-max is and that if you can't beat it like it it's your 'ho and it owes you money you're a helmet-wearing retard.

[/ QUOTE ]

The game is certainly not easy. But 6-max requires a new set of skills that most micro-limit players haven't had the opportunity to acquire. A good small stakes full ring player understands pot odds, value betting (somewhat), and aggressive play in big multiway pots. But skills like hand reading, blinds play, and overall aggression in HU pots is something that takes time and experience to become good at. Hand reading and understanding the betting patterns of different players is something that can only be learned with 1-tabling. IMO, 1-tabling is for learning a good winning strategy and experimenting. Multi-tabling is for players who already have a good winning strategy, and are trying to maximize their earn or build bankroll for a higher limit. Finally, for short-handed poker, less tables = more fun. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
I started playing off playing 6-max by 4 tabling 1/2 Party at a winrate of 3.4 BB/100 over 10k hands. Moved to 2/4 6-max at UB and Stars 4-tabling 6-max with 2 10-handed tables at the side at a win rate of ~2.6 over 10k hands

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to have a competition here, but I ran better than that for longer than that, and then went -200B for the next 25K hands. check out this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2284901&page=&view=&s b=5&o=) for a discussion from a bunch of experience shorthanded players. if half of these guys (mostly 5/10 and up players) are playing <4 tables, that's meaningful.

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I started playing off playing 6-max by 4 tabling 1/2 Party at a winrate of 3.4 BB/100 over 10k hands. Moved to 2/4 6-max at UB and Stars 4-tabling 6-max with 2 10-handed tables at the side at a win rate of ~2.6 over 10k hands

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to have a competition here, but I ran better than that for longer than that, and then went -200B for the next 25K hands. check out this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2284901&page=&view=&s b=5&o=) for a discussion from a bunch of experience shorthanded players. if half of these guys (mostly 5/10 and up players) are playing <4 tables, that's meaningful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. 10k is way too small a sample. I was up 6bb/100 for my first 5k hands of 1/2. My next 5k hands were break even.

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I started playing off playing 6-max by 4 tabling 1/2 Party at a winrate of 3.4 BB/100 over 10k hands. Moved to 2/4 6-max at UB and Stars 4-tabling 6-max with 2 10-handed tables at the side at a win rate of ~2.6 over 10k hands

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not trying to have a competition here, but I ran better than that for longer than that, and then went -200B for the next 25K hands. check out this thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=2284901&page=&view=&s b=5&o=) for a discussion from a bunch of experience shorthanded players. if half of these guys (mostly 5/10 and up players) are playing <4 tables, that's meaningful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree. 10k is way too small a sample. I was up 6bb/100 for my first 5k hands of 1/2. My next 5k hands were break even. I don't even worry about my winrate until I have about 100k hands at 6-max.

[Nick Royale]

[ QUOTE ]
Agree. 10k is way too small a sample. I was up 6bb/100 for my first 5k hands of 1/2. My next 5k hands were break even. I don't even worry about my winrate until I have about 100k hands at 6-max.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the total sample size is 20k hands, but since I know very little about 6-max I'm sure you guys are right. Just felt like the players sucked, but I guess have yet to feel the disastrous swings of 6-max /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[Isura]

I'm not doubting you can beat that game for 3bb/100, the players are terrible. I was just pointing out that it's a lot harder to maintain 3bb/100 4-tabling versus 1-2 tabling IMO, so it's harder to draw much conclusions from 10k hands. I read in the archives that people like El Diable had 30k stretches of break even poker at 10/20 6 max. That makes me rather ill...

[Reqtech]

Why would you want to stick to 1/2 for 100K hands if you're winning?

[afk]

[ QUOTE ]
10k is way too small a sample. I was up 6bb/100 for my first 5k hands of 1/2. My next 5k hands were break even.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ain't that the truth. My first 10k of 1/2 were divided between Party and Stars. Party was about 3.5bb/100 and Stars was literally break even (down like $8) - it seemed like every time I'd get ahead I'd hit a nasty slide. Still, I'm starting to like 6max more than full ring at these limits.

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you want to stick to 1/2 for 100K hands if you're winning?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. I'm not saying I plan to stay at 1/2 for 100k hands, just that I don't think it's worth to worry so much about winrate without a good sample. I've played 15k at 1/2, and I plan to move up to 2/4 at a non Party site this week.

[Reqtech]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why would you want to stick to 1/2 for 100K hands if you're winning?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea. I'm not saying I plan to stay at 1/2 for 100k hands, just that I don't think it's worth to worry so much about winrate without a good sample. I've played 15k at 1/2, and I plan to move up to 2/4 at a non Party site this week.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha, I guess I just misunderstood. I recently switched to UB for 6 max and it's pretty soft there. Good luck!

[kapw7]

I think losing 200BBs means 95% there is something wrong with your game and 5% variance. If you really want to learn then single tabling is the only way to go. If you think it's boring, less profitable etc. then you are not going to learn.
I also think that it's better not to start in Party but try other sites. There are some very passive games elsewhere where you are not going to be bet and raised by trash all the time. (Of course if you know how to handle this, then Party is great). Party on weekends is always the best.
I have suffered terrible bad beats, with less experience and I've never been close to losing 200BB. There are just so many poeple ready to give up their stacks.

[droolie]

[ QUOTE ]
I think losing 200BBs means 95% there is something wrong with your game and 5% variance. If you really want to learn then single tabling is the only way to go. If you think it's boring, less profitable etc. then you are not going to learn.
I also think that it's better not to start in Party but try other sites. There are some very passive games elsewhere where you are not going to be bet and raised by trash all the time. (Of course if you know how to handle this, then Party is great). Party on weekends is always the best.
I have suffered terrible bad beats, with less experience and I've never been close to losing 200BB. There are just so many poeple ready to give up their stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope you're right about the downswings but I don't think you are. I haven't had one that large either and I suck at 6-max but I seem to remember reading many posts from respected players who have had 200BB downswings. Keep up the good work and may you stay out of that 5%!

[kenberman]

[ QUOTE ]
I think losing 200BBs means 95% there is something wrong with your game and 5% variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say it was 25% running bad, 25% me playing too LAG, and 50% me not thinking well enough b/c I was playing too many tables. (this relates to playing too LAG).

[ QUOTE ]
I have...less experience

[/ QUOTE ] this is partially why this: [ QUOTE ]
I've never been close to losing 200BB

[/ QUOTE ] is true.

be prepared for a downswing like this, especially if you play shorthanded. it's just a matter of when.

[kapw7]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think losing 200BBs means 95% there is something wrong with your game and 5% variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say it was 25% running bad, 25% me playing too LAG, and 50% me not thinking well enough b/c I was playing too many tables. (this relates to playing too LAG).

[ QUOTE ]
I have...less experience

[/ QUOTE ] this is partially why this: [ QUOTE ]
I've never been close to losing 200BB

[/ QUOTE ] is true.

be prepared for a downswing like this, especially if you play shorthanded. it's just a matter of when.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have experience now. Far from a solid player but I have 45000 hands at 1/2 and 2BB/100. I still think it is very unlikely to fall 200BB at 1/2 Party. For higher limits, I have no doubt.

[SomethingClever]

[ QUOTE ]
I think losing 200BBs means 95% there is something wrong with your game and 5% variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

It happens. I had a 280 BB downswing at 1/2 short, and my winrate was still 2.3 after 40,000 hands.

[bottomset]

yep, I lost 190BB 4tabling at the beginning of the month, part running bad, part playing bad, a lot to do with playing too many tables

I'm 2tabling 2/46max on Stars now

the swings happen, but god the rake at party 1/2 is insane