[cnfuzzd]

[ QUOTE ]
Glad you brought this up. When I first started playing poker I thought 6-max was a great idea. It ensured more action, by virtue of being required to play more hands (not in terms of larger pots, per se). However, the variance is an absolute b*tch. I find myself, much more prone to tilt, when it's shorthanded as opposed to full ring...not sure why this is, but I think it has to do with the variance swings (easier to get pissed about one guy consistently cracking you when it's SH...less likely full ring).

Plus, I think more money is to be had playing full ring. Not even considering the variance, when you can build pots with your monsters by virtue of getting more callers full ring, your monsters are more +EV with full ring.

In short, without an adequate bankroll, playing 6-max can make you go broke pretty quick.

Just my two cents...

[/ QUOTE ]

hmm,,, well, first of all, while the variance in these games is higher than full games, it doesnt speak to the profitibility of them. Ev in poker comes from spending time playing against bad players. Short handed games offer the most opportunity for this. Finally, while there are larger pots in full games, the point of poker is to win money, not large pots.

peace

john nickle