[blackaces13]

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.