6 max Party

[JKratzer]

Just a general question - I've recently decided to play the 6 max tables while before I played mostly the full ring games. What general differences are there between the 400/600/1000 tables? I assume it gets slightly more difficult as you advance, but if there are any other diffs I'd like to hear about it before I jump in.

Thanks,
JKratzer

[spino1i]

I've played 400 and 600 NL 6-max at party, as well as 400, 600, and 1000 NL 10-max on Party. The 400 game is much more aggressive than lower 6-max stakes and 10-max. If the highest you've played in the past is 200 NL 6-max, there is a BIG difference between 200 and 400 NL 6-max. At 200 they dont bully you around and let you bully them around, at 400 they dont let you off the hook so easily. Lots of bluffing and bullying. Bear trapping becomes important. The players get slightly better at 600 NL 6-max, though not significantly better. It hasnt taken me long to beat 600 NL 6-max the same way I was beating 400 NL 6-max. I dont know about 1000 NL 6-max, but it looks much harder.

[edge]

That's weird. I haven't played below 2/4 in a while, but I definitely noticed a difference in player skill between 2/4 and 3/6. 3/6 is the least-populated level in the whole NL range, so maybe table selection is the main point here? I don't really practice good table selection because I'm dumb.

There is a fairly big difference between 3/6 and 5/10. The 5/10 is a lot more aggressive. However, I totally changed my game when I moved from 3/6 to 5/10, so my comparison may be flawed.

[VanVeen]

"The 5/10 is a lot more aggressive"

Maybe, but it still isn't what I would call 'aggressive'. There are very few players worth worrying about - the rest have very unbalanced hand ranges (actions represent narrow hand ranges) that are easy to play against.