Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

You do get more hands per hour at a short handed table though. Wouldn't that sort of even it out?

Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

[ QUOTE ]
It should also be noted that this higher rake actually makes 6-max quite pleasurable if you happen to be clearing bonuses as well as playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hm, maybe you could talk Party into opening some special tables with 80% rake. With rake that high, you could REALLY clean up!!!!!

Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It should also be noted that this higher rake actually makes 6-max quite pleasurable if you happen to be clearing bonuses as well as playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hm, maybe you could talk Party into opening some special tables with 80% rake. With rake that high, you could REALLY clean up!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

pwned by a guy with 11 posts. ouch.

Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It should also be noted that this higher rake actually makes 6-max quite pleasurable if you happen to be clearing bonuses as well as playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hm, maybe you could talk Party into opening some special tables with 80% rake. With rake that high, you could REALLY clean up!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

pwned by a guy with 11 posts. ouch.

[/ QUOTE ]

I make my posts count.....except for this one.

Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ya, upon further review, my rake comment probably wasn't right. I kind of threw it out there, but now that I've "investigated" a little more, I think you guys are right that you probably actually pay more rake overall.

I do, however, stand behind my assertion that 6-max is overall more profitable. The percentage of really terrible players at 6-max is nicely higher IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Question is how long these 6 max tables are going to be soft as now all the 2+2 anglers are sprinting over to party and casting their rods out. [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ya, upon further review, my rake comment probably wasn't right. I kind of threw it out there, but now that I've "investigated" a little more, I think you guys are right that you probably actually pay more rake overall.

I do, however, stand behind my assertion that 6-max is overall more profitable. The percentage of really terrible players at 6-max is nicely higher IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

With all due respect this is something you should have looked into before printing. The extra time it would have taken would be more than worth it in terms of your credibility as a writer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take my credibility as a writer very seriously. I try to put out the most accurate and valuable poker advice I can.

But I make mistakes sometimes. It's up to you and everyone else to decide whether you think reading what I have to say is worthwhile or not.

Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

[ QUOTE ]
With all due respect this is something you should have looked into before printing. The extra time it would have taken would be more than worth it in terms of your credibility as a writer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Practically all newspapers and magazines have a "corrections" section to straighten out the errors that slipped through the cracks. The 2+2 magazine forums serve that function here.

Ed takes his credibililty has a writer very seriously, which is why he frequently posts in this forum to clarify or correct the magazine articles.

You seem to have a strong interest in quality articles. I urge you to consider writing for the magazine yourself. Read this if you're interested.

Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's up to you and everyone else to decide whether you think reading what I have to say is worthwhile or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, it's also up to you to decide whether taking 10 minutes to confirm your statement is worth the time.

Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

Have you read the threads in which the 2+2 authors critique other similiar publications? If not I suggest you do. In light of their criticisms it shouldn't be suprising that 2+2 readers hold this magazine to a higher standard.

Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

Are they really terrible [players] or are they really terrible 6-max players ?

I don't play alot of 6-max but my limited contact with these games has me thinking it's likely the latter.

There is alot of useful material in print aimed toward ring games but very little aimed toward short-handed play.

The situation reminds me of the late 80s/early 90s when if you blinked you missed the legalization of poker in yet another state, and where it was already allowed it seemed to suddenly explode in popularity.

While all games are usually good in a new location, Omaha games were often too good to be true and holdem games were typically far better than stud.

Make no mistake, there were plenty of bad stud players and more than a few very bad stud players but the majority seemed to play in something close to a lucid manner; holdem tables typically featured at least 2 or 3 players that would call (or even overcall) with a hand that could not beat the board and omaha games would routinely see cries of "full house" when there was no pair on board.

*

Ah, those were the days. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]