Difference between 6 seater and 10 seater play

[Mr Trips]

Firstly apologies if this is retreading old ground.

But I would like to get peoples impressions on the difference between small and large NL table play.

I play mainly 6 seaters as I prefer the faster action but recent forays on to larger tables make me think that maybe 6 seaters are actually alot harder. As a relatively new player (around 6 months) am I making my life harder? Any views on this?

In terms of starting hands is there much difference or do people just stick to roughly the same requirements?

Cheers in advance for replys.

[Gunsmoke]

I think it makes quite a big difference.

For example, in a early position in a 10 seat game you would Muck KT off - however, in a 6 seat game you could get away with a call.

The hand requirements do change slightly in my opinion, you should play more hands short handed.

[schwza]

i raise before the flop a lot more in 6max. mostly that's because i get to openraise from the cut-off or cut-off minus 1. i've heard the advice that you should play 6max as if it's a 10-handed game in which the first 4 people have folded.

i've had way more success in 6max than full table - i find it easier and more fun, so i play longer and pay more attention. what do you like about full table?

[Gunsmoke]

I actually find full ring games tedious most of the time. 6 seat is quicker.

[ClimbRock512]

It is much easier to teach a beginner to play 10-handed. You much fewer starting hands, and you need a better hand to win. It takes much less decision making and it is much easier to play multiple tables at once.

6-handed tables have taken a great deal of the fish from the 10 handed games. These fish want to play a lot of hands and always be in on the action. I think a strong 6-handed player can make more money per table than a 10-handed player. The variance is much greater though. Learn how to play a full ring game and then you can switch to 6-handed if you are actually interested in learning to play winning poker.

[Mr Trips]

Thanks for the replys so far.

Allthough the length of time I have been playing is not great I have amassed what I would consider a lot of playing experience (in other words i need to get out more).

It's just that allthough I enjoy 6 seaters more because of the increased ease of getting reads on players and dominating/ affecting the play, not to mention more action.

I generally have found my brief stints on larger tables to be easier. This is mainly because I feel you dont have to think preflop or post flop quite so much. You either have a playable hand or you dont or you bluff. I think this also applys to tournaments.

With 6 seaters you tend to see players involved in big pots with little without really going for a bluff.

So it leaves me with a slight dilema. Do I go with what I believe is an easier way to make money or do I go for what I believe is a more educational and fun way to play?

[Leo Bello]

As I began playing Poker, I tried the 6 tables. wrong way.
It is easier to learn at the 10 handed tables. By learning I mean my first 12 months playing.
Now, I mix the tables, finding that I can better multi-table at 10 handed, exactly because it is slower paced, and when I go to a 6 table, I play only one table. and usually have more fun with the game.