Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

Ed Miller's article tells us that less rake per hand is one of the reasons that 6-max games are up to twice as profitable as full ring. Unless I'm mistaken all this boils down to is saying that at 6-max the average pots are smaller. I'm not aware of any structural rake differences at low limits between 6-max and full tables of the same limit.

In my experience the pots at 6 max are about equal to the pots at full ring but even if we assume that they are slightly smaller, it stands to reason that the rake is significantly higher per player being that you now have 6 players contributing marginally less to roughly the same amount in rake as a full table of 10 players.

I don't have data to back this up, so I might be off base, but it seems intuitive to me that 6-max players pay far more in rake per 100 hands than their full ring counterparts. I'm not calling into question whether or not 6-max is more profitable here at all, just stating that that particular reason seems false to me.

Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

For 6 players rake is capped at $3 as in full tables.
For 5 players rake is capped at $2
Tables avg less than 6 players. Typically 5.4 or so.
It stands to reason rake will be capped at $3 less often than at full tables.
This may or may not be correct as I am wrong about as often as I am right.

Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

The rake per player is much higher. The cardrooms are making a KILLING on these games.

You have to play more pots with a smaller edge.
These pots are activly contested either via the silly calls or mis-placed aggression. A lot of steal situations in online small stakes full ring end on earlier streets (granted my opponents are often giving up too easily.)
You must showdown more often with weaker holdings that you otherwise would dump in a full ring game because your opponents are more erratic and as a defensive measure.

Table selection is key, because if our opponents weren't so god-aweful-omfg-horrible these games would be very difficult to beat.

Getting dinged for $1, $1.5, $2 on almost every pot is far more expensive than getting hit up for $3 in out-of-control schooling pots.

Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

[ QUOTE ]

This may or may not be correct as I am wrong about as often as I am right.

[/ QUOTE ]

What did he say??? [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]

Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

I have to disagree w/Ed Millers stance on the rake structure at the typical 6max online games. From my playing experience and pt #s, I estimate that you pay about 1sb/100 hands more in rake during a 6max game compared to a full ring of the same calibur. These numbers are taken from 3/6 full games but I feel the same generalization can be made for 5/10 b/c the rake structure is similar as compared to the size of the BB. Once you get beyond that, I cannot make assumptions as I have no data to support that.

As a side, I do not feel that it is possible to make more BB/hr playing 6 max as compared to full ring and I feel it is a less profitable overall game. The fact that you can play more hands/table is compensated by the fact that you can play more tables at full ring. An ideal setup w/2 monitors can yeild the same # of hands/hour b/c a full ringer can prolly play 8 tables at a time whereas a SHer will only play 6.

Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

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.

Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

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. This alone might make it more profitable per hour for a lower-stakes player.

I also agree with Ed. When I first started playing 6max I expected tons of aggression, but while I do find a couple LAGgy players, I mostly also find at least one BIG calling station per table, and that's just great.

Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

[ QUOTE ]
An ideal setup w/2 monitors can yeild the same # of hands/hour b/c a full ringer can prolly play 8 tables at a time whereas a SHer will only play 6.

[/ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of people who can effectively play more than 6 SH tables at once. I do. That said, one will always be able to play more full games than SH - not just because full plays fewer hands/tbl hr, but because you can more generally autopilot full games.

The biggest reason to play the 6max games on Party is because they're so freaking soft.

Re: Regarding the rake at 6-max...
 

Ed,

Its been consistantly discussed in the HUSH forum about how a lot people seem to have lower winrates @ 6max than full. A good win rate @ 5/10 6max is usually about 1.7 bbs/100. An equally skilled full ringer can usually make about 2.25 BB/100. I think you're underestimating the amount that rake affects your bottom line at SH.

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 ]

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.

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]