Anybody playing $5-10 full lately?

[ChicagoTroy]

I took a couple months off poker and came back and Party's different. I'm wondering if anybody has taken to playing $5-10 full* lately, or if that game is still a little too bad and has too high a rake.

*Yes, I know $5-10 6-Max is a much better game.

[flair1239]

There have been a lot of threads on this lately to summarise:

1. People who actually play 5/10 full, will say that it can be tight at times, but with proper games selection, the games are actually quite good. I am in this camp.

2. People who have not played a signficant amount of hands at 5/10 full, will say that it is a rock garden and a waste of time and will then proceed to post Hand Histories showing donk type plays from 5/10 6-max to show how good that game is.

[JackyChilds]

I`ve noticed this as well. I`ve only played about 1,000 hands at 5/10 6 max as opposed to 5,000+ at full ring, so my sample size is pretty small. My question for those folks who prefer 6 max is, "are you really beating the game at a higher rate to overcome the blinds posted per hour with a smaller orbit?".

[RacersEdge]

I would be leaning toward #1 as well, but I have only played about 1500 hands at 5/10 full.

What's the theory on why 6 max would be juicier?

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
What's the theory on why 6 max would be juicier?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's more exciting. You can play more hands. Fluctuations are larger so fish can have much larger runs.

[JackyChilds]

[/ QUOTE ]It's more exciting. You can play more hands. Fluctuations are larger so fish can have much larger runs.

[/ QUOTE ]

I`m all for excitment, but I still don`t see how 6 max could be more profitable in the long run than full ring unless it is just chock full of knuckleheads.

(fwiw, I just noticed the original poster mentioned Party, I usually play Poker Stars, if that makes any difference.)

[brettbrettr]

[ QUOTE ]
unless it is just chock full of knuckleheads.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Party 5/10 Short tables are pretty typically full of knuckleheads.

[JoshuaD]

[ QUOTE ]
I`m all for excitment, but I still don`t see how 6 max could be more profitable in the long run than full ring unless it is just chock full of knuckleheads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah, you misunderstand me. The factors I listed above attract the knuckleheads.

[fluff]

[ QUOTE ]
My question for those folks who prefer 6 max is, "are you really beating the game at a higher rate to overcome the blinds posted per hour with a smaller orbit?".

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't play 5/10 6 Max, and I don't understand this question. Everyone has to post blinds at the faster rate, so you can't "overcome" them in the sense that you "overcome" rake. Right?

[DMBFan23]

your winrate listed in pokertracker is Net, not Gross, so after playing 100 hands, you walk away with a certain amount of dollars.

2 things at play here:
-your edge can be larger, and therefore your winrate higher.
-the hands come much faster

both of those conspire to more $$ per table hour. then you have to factor in how many tables you can comfortably play. it will probablky be less than full ring, but the higher winrate argument still applies