Here's one...

[BottlesOf]

Do you play 6-max any differently than you play a full game with only 6 people? If so, why?

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you play 6-max any differently than you play a full game with only 6 people?

[/ QUOTE ]

In most cases yes

[ QUOTE ]
why?

[/ QUOTE ]

Becuase a 6 handed table probably has a couple of players who know how to play 6 handed.

A 10 handed table with only 6 players probably does not have players who know how to play 6 handed very well. Sometimes I think the easiest money to be made in poker is on a table that has become short handed. Usually the remaining players begin to fold too much.

Stu

[BottlesOf]

Yeah, I think I'm one of those people /images/graemlins/confused.gif. I leave tables when they get short.

[mmahlin]

When the table gets short handed, try sticking around next time. What you may find is that playing against a short table CAN be very pofitable.

Part of the reason for this is that players used to playing full tables don't adjust their play when they're up against fewer opponents; screwing down and playing the nuts doesn't neccessarily get the dollars when you're playing short-handed (or, arguably, at a full table).

For one thing, you play more hands per hr and you're in the blinds more often. If you rock down too hard, the blinds can take a large chunk out of your bankroll. Also, fewer players means a smaller card distribution, so you can play more hands than you might on a full table. Smaller pairs and suited connectors can be very powerful short handed. But, as with all things poker, there are limits. You don't neccessarily want to become the hyper-aggrssive maniac -- playing any two cards and calling every hand down to the river. It's a common refrain, but the table dictates your style of play.

Feeny's book has some good info and insight on short handed play. Have you read it?

Reading back through all of this, most of it seems pretty obvious, so if I've insulted your intelligence I apologize. If your bank roll can handle the swings, try playing some short handed games. I've found that it has helped my reading skills (which really need help) as I'm in more hands and up against aggressive to ultra-aggressive play. Try it, you might like it

[BottlesOf]

I'm not insulted at all, in fact, I'm quite appreciative. I haven't read Feeney's book, but what you've said makes sense and resonates with stuff I have read. It's quite logical that you can play more hands and tat there is a smaller dist.

However, I am a bit surprised that small pairs and lesser suited connectors go up in value relative to other hands. Aren't these the hands that thrive on the implied odds from multi-way pots? I can understand lowering standards a little, but I'm not 100% sure why it is esp. so for these hands.

[JTG51]

I agree with Stu. Lots of players go to 6 max tables looking for action, while most players in a 10 handed game that is missing 4 players don't make any adjustments.

[mmahlin]

Yeah, the small pairs and suited connectors thrive on big pots, and you want to play them selectively. However, you're often going to have four or more in a pot because that ol' "any two cards" impulse tends to get pushed to the forefront when playing short handed. The blinds call more often, and raises pre-flop often get called with hands most people would fold without a thought at a full table. I'm not saying you should play any pair of ducks that come along, just that as you open up your play it can be valuable to come in with these hands from a position you maybe wouldn't have at a full table. Then again, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about /images/graemlins/blush.gif