Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

I've been grinding out the micro-limit games, starting with .50/1, and doing well enough to be moving from 1/2 up to 2/4 soon.....and all of my success has been at full ring games (Party and Multi).

I assume I'm most comfortable at these larger tables because all of the books I've studied so hard usually focus on a 10-handed game. But I hear more and more about 6-max and how, if played correctly, can be far more profitable.

So my question to all you 6-max advocates is, am I being silly to ignore these tables? Now that I've had continued success at $1/$2 full ring, would I likely benefit from sliding over to 6-max? Please post any random opinions on the topic. Thanks

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

1/2 6max is a goldmine

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

You must play 1/2 6max before playing 2/4.

and yes I agree with bottomset, it is a goldmine.

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

all the retards go to 6max tables for the action, excitement, and the comraderie. follow them.

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

[ QUOTE ]
all the retards go to 6max tables for the action, excitement, and the comraderie. follow them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if I'm in the former group or the latter.

6M is as addictive as crack though.

Natedog = Junkie

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

i love the camraderie, personally.

70/30/5? fun times. hop on and win cash$

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

I don't think it's as simple as 6-max is more (or less) profitable than 10-max. The more relevant question is, what's your playing style?

If you crave action - then 6-max. If you like predictable (for poker) winning - then 10-max.

6-max is faster and more volitile than 10-max. Plus it requires different skills. Don't assume your winning tactics at 10-max will work.

So, bottom line, if you're looking for a change then go for it. But it sounds like you've got a good thing going at 10-max, why try and master a new style if you are already profitable?

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

I going to disagree with the last poster. The players are exponentially worse, and you see far more hands. This renders almost everything else irrelevant. It is more profitable--to the tune of 1 or 2 more BB/100--if you know what you're doing. But it does take some time to learn the skills.

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I going to disagree with the last poster. The players are exponentially worse, and you see far more hands. This renders almost everything else irrelevant. It is more profitable--to the tune of 1 or 2 more BB/100--if you know what you're doing. But it does take some time to learn the skills.

[/ QUOTE ]


Adapting to those new skills is the rub. If it takes you a few thousand hands to get the knack of 6-max, then I'm not so sure I agree you wind up ahead. Especially if you consider the opponturnity cost of what you typically win over the same span of hands at 10-max.

Which brings me back to the fundamental point - if your natural style is the opposite of LA, then you might want to think hard before making the switch.

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

[ QUOTE ]
But it sounds like you've got a good thing going at 10-max, why try and master a new style if you are already profitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Deception5 explains why 6-max is good for one's overall game

[ QUOTE ]
If you crave action - then 6-max. If you like predictable (for poker) winning - then 10-max. 6-max is faster and more volitile than 10-max.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree; or at least, not entirely. 6-max is busier than full ring, to be sure, but it doesn't mean that you go in there "craving action". You don't need to juice up your aggression stats by a point or two to succeed there, and if you're trying to, you're probably spewing. I've played a fair amount of each and my standard deviations for the two games aren't substantially different. If someone finds themselves losing more/less at 6-max, it's at least partially because he/she is just playing more hands.

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If it takes you a few thousand hands to get the knack of 6-max, then I'm not so sure I agree you wind up ahead.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Presuming that one is going to win at a higher rate at one game vs. another, and that eventually one will be able to acquire these skills (both of these presumptions are implied in your post), then how can it be possible that one will not come out ahead?

For example, take the following assumptions:

* a player can win 1BB/100 more at 6max than at an equal-limit full ring game
* it takes that player 10K hands to learn 6max, and achieve this improved winrate
* the player averaged 3BB/100 playing full ring
* during his first 10K hands of 6max, the player only averaged 1.5BB/100 (first 2k hands -2BB/100, next 2K -1BB/100, etc.)

Anybody on this board should be able to figure out exactly how many hands it's going to be before the player breaks even. Of course, this doesn't include bonii or unmentionable.

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

1/2 6 max is the new .5/1 full ring.

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

when you hit 3/6 you're REALLY going to want to play the 6max tables. and you're REALLY not going to want to play 3/6 6max without working on your shorthanded play, first.

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

[ QUOTE ]

* it takes that player 10K hands to learn 6max, and achieve this improved winrate

[/ QUOTE ]
ugh, I hope I get the hang of this by 10k...through my first 5k my ATM machine has been a little buggy. Still fun, and yes, there are always fish at the table. And every once in a while, I don't feel like one of them.

http://poker.unclesharky.com/images/first5k6max.jpg

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

On the other hand, I took to it like a fish to water...

http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/3475/6max9da.png

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

i personally use it to improve my short handed game in full ring now, although overall i probably would have played more 6m hands than fr because i only made the switch to fr a month or two ago.

ive always thought that it would be harder to multitable effectively at 6m and would make you more prone to errors. further you have to be totally tilt free as even the slightest frustration running 6 tables of 6m would cost you.... a lot.

anyone have any thoughts on this aspect?

lets say your beating 6m at 1BB/100 and fr for 1BB/100. but 6m one table goes through 150 hands in the time fr does 100. so basically your ratio is 1.5:1 for 6m being more profitable.

even if this was the case.... i still think it would be so much easier to multitable 8 fr tables than to multitable even 3 6m ones, which would make fr tables still more profitable?

anyone know what the real numbers are like and how this affects the reasoning to actually play 6m for cash? (currently i only 6m for skill development)

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've been grinding out the micro-limit games, starting with .50/1, and doing well enough to be moving from 1/2 up to 2/4 soon.....and all of my success has been at full ring games (Party and Multi).

I assume I'm most comfortable at these larger tables because all of the books I've studied so hard usually focus on a 10-handed game. But I hear more and more about 6-max and how, if played correctly, can be far more profitable.

So my question to all you 6-max advocates is, am I being silly to ignore these tables? Now that I've had continued success at $1/$2 full ring, would I likely benefit from sliding over to 6-max? Please post any random opinions on the topic. Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

My opinion of 1 2 6max given my limited exposure:

I've JUST started playing 1-2 6max (barely over 1k hands), but it is awesome. You will see avg. vpips that blow your mind. The 6-max donk is completely different than the .5 1 or 1 2 full-ring donk ...

typical 1 2 ring donk: "I am going to see as many flops as possible, then call down to the river then either fold UI or showdown everything starting with A-high on up"

typical 1 2 6-max donk: "I am going to play every hand and raise anything with paint. I will also bluff as much as possible anytime anything scary hits - board pairs, any possible flush or straight hits ... sometimes when a 2 comes ill river-raise as well just to spice up life"

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

Take the worst player you've ever faced in full ring on party. There is at least one of him on every single 6max table as we speak.

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You will see avg. vpips that blow your mind. The 6-max donk is completely different than the .5 1 or 1 2 full-ring donk ...

[/ QUOTE ]
PT tells me my average 6-max opponent has a VPIP of 43, with a PFR of 10. Contrast with full ring: 30/6.5.

That's almost 50% more hands being played 50% more aggressively. Considering the full ring players are already playing too many hands, this is mondo fishoroso.

There are also a bunch of 6-max players whose strategy seems to be never to raise preflop, ever. I've got guys whose VPIP after over 200 hands is 70+ with a PFR of 0.0. 40% of the players in my 6-max database have never raised preflop. (Way to limit the field with those top pair hands.)

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

nh. Hmmm, maybe I should have played 13k FR before swithing instead of 4k.

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

[ QUOTE ]
If someone finds themselves losing more/less at 6-max, it's at least partially because he/she is just playing more hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely disagree with this logic. Since we speak in bb/100 the number of hands you play has nothing to do with your winrate. Unless you are talking about the number of hands you don't fold.

I agree with everything else said in this thread. 6max is crack. Love it, eat it, breath it.

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

[ QUOTE ]
even if this was the case.... i still think it would be so much easier to multitable 8 fr tables than to multitable even 3 6m ones, which would make fr tables still more profitable?

anyone know what the real numbers are like and how this affects the reasoning to actually play 6m for cash? (currently i only 6m for skill development)



[/ QUOTE ]

yeah playing 8tables full ring will be more profitable than 3 sh, but from a skill development standpoint, gaining skills needed to move up its prob worse off, look at all the 2/4 8tablers that can't move up effectively, because they learn a strategy to win small, and just play a ton of hands

I play exclusively 6max outside of 2+2games, and B&M .. I just prefer the game that way its more interesting for me.

[ QUOTE ]
when you hit 3/6 you're REALLY going to want to play the 6max tables. and you're REALLY not going to want to play 3/6 6max without working on your shorthanded play, first

[/ QUOTE ]

yeah jumping straight into 3/6 6max with any sh play at lower levels will be tough, but for someone who has had sh experience this level is beatable for a fair amount

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If someone finds themselves losing more/less at 6-max, it's at least partially because he/she is just playing more hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely disagree with this logic. Since we speak in bb/100 the number of hands you play has nothing to do with your winrate. Unless you are talking about the number of hands you don't fold.

[/ QUOTE ]
Let's modify it then: If someone finds themselves losing more/less at 6-max, it's at least partially because he/she is just playing more marginal hands.

The playable/raisable range of hands in 6-max is necessarily greater than it is in full ring, therefore win rates will swing more. In full ring more of those 100 hands are electively played, so those hands will have higher EV, meaning less variance.

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

Alright, agreed.

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I completely disagree with this logic. Since we speak in bb/100 the number of hands you play has nothing to do with your winrate. Unless you are talking about the number of hands you don't fold.

[/ QUOTE ]

We speak in 100s of hands, but we live in real time. And I said nothing of win-rate. I was referring to the fact that one plays considerably more hands per hour in 6-max than full ring. That's why, to some, 6-max seems to be "more volatile", when the variance in both games is similar, as I suggested.

edit: Ignignokt makes a good point too. I suspect that one's playing more hands - and more marginal hands - mostly explains the variance difference between the two games. My point was about perception.

edit 2: And, to be fair, I wasn't clear about that.

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Let's modify it then: If someone finds themselves losing more/less at 6-max, it's at least partially because he/she is just playing more marginal hands.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, that's how I read your original statement.

Also, don't fall into the "It's shorthand, he can't have a hand" line, either. That's what makes SH so sweet - they all think that. And you value bet them to death. Preflop SH is different. Postflop, it shouldn't be that different than a full ring game. You still have pot odds. You still can pump draws. Opponents can still hit sets and straights and frushes.

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

Six max is indeed a goldmine.

Wwhat time do you guys play? Cause at about 11-12 PM EST, the tables on Stars go from like 70/10/1 to 50/20/4 (estimates) and I can no longer run over a buch of loose weak passives and I actually have to start paying attention [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

For a 6 max newb, are there any threads that discuss preflop play in depth? I tried a search but did not yield anything useful.

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

Required reading:

web page

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I going to disagree with the last poster. The players are exponentially worse, and you see far more hands. This renders almost everything else irrelevant. It is more profitable--to the tune of 1 or 2 more BB/100--if you know what you're doing. But it does take some time to learn the skills.

[/ QUOTE ]

From my experience, it seems more difficult. This is probably mostly due to the fact that you have rely on reads more and make lots more marginal decisions. You cannot really play as well on "autopilot" as you can in full ring. (Not that you should ever do this, but multitabling causes most players to do this to some extent.)

I'm also wondering since each player can have more of an impact on the table, you have to adjust more to each individual table. This may not be true; it's just something I thought last night after a table I was playing on was steamrolled by a complete maniac.

From a psychological standpoint, the variance seems like a rollercoaster. And because of this, like other posters mentioned, you may be more prone to tilt. I think that the variance of 6-max makes all the weak-tighties run for the hills. The LAGs obviously love these tables and seem to be migrating there.

Because of this migration, it seems like internet poker will continue to evolve into a different entity than live play. There's no such thing as a live 6-max table is there? This would make sense from a business perspective, I suppose.

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

hahahahaaaa
you are say. atm maschine!!!
the m in the atm is mean maschne!!
youu are say atomatic tel ler maschine masjine!!!
loloooolol
a

Re: Is 6-max really an ATM machine?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Presuming that one is going to win at a higher rate at one game vs. another, and that eventually one will be able to acquire these skills (both of these presumptions are implied in your post), then how can it be possible that one will not come out ahead?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you assume an unlimited time frame and constrained variables, then, yes, it is a solvable problem. However, that is not the point. Poker is not an algebra excersie. Instead, as the cliche goes, it's a game of people played with cards.

If you're prone to tilt and consider 2k hands a LARGE number of hands, then bank roll considerations come into play. If the player only has 100BB and hits a run of bad cards, for instance, at what point do they stop functioning rationally? 20% down? 50% down? Sure this can happen at a 10-max table. But it is more likely to happen if the player needs adjusts to the LAG style of a SH table.

Which brings me back, again, to the fundamental point - Rocks and/or people who tilt easily should not assume SH is ALWAYS better.

That's it! There are no asumptions about win rates, or any other table stat for that matter. It is simply a matter of knowing yourself. Or, in the absence of self knowledge, the equanimity to tollerate a run of bad cards. But in either case, this is about knowing yourself as a player. And that knowledge only comes from within.