Cost of blinds at 6max

[jukofyork]

Been playing alot more 0.5/1 6max lately, mainly because since both party and pacific introduced 6max, the quality of full ring games seems to have dropped. I feel as thought I have been playing well (try to think in terms of just the first 4 players folded, ect) and have been winning, but however much I try to improve my 6max game, my winrate at 6max is approximately 1/2 of full-ring winrate.

By summing my winrates in each of the positions, I think I have finnally found why, eg:

1..2..3..4..5..6..7..8..9..10 | NET
-1 -1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 | = 6

1..2..3..4..5..6..| NET
-1 -1 +1 +1 +1 +1 | = 2

Please note these stats are only for illustration, but the cost of the blinds seem to be the root cause of why I am not doing aswell at 6max as full ring in terms of BB/100 and BB/hr.

I have also looked at the stats for several other winning players who have also moved from full-ring to 6max, and in general they seem to have the same problem.

I am at the stage now where I feel like moving back to playing full-ring for good. Is their any ex-full-ring players here who have made a similar move and stuck this out and if so, have you found 6max to ultimately be more profitable at higher limits?

Thanks Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[twowords]

Switched to 6 max 3 weeks ago myself. I don't have enough hands to report win rates, but it seems like these games are certainly more profitable than the equivalent full games lately, in 5-10 and 10-20 at least.

Hows your sample size?

[RunDownHouse]

Ed Miller had an article about this misconception in the 2+2 magazine a month or two ago. Essentially, you are viewing the blinds as a sunk cost, something that you have "paid." But that isn't quite true. That money isn't gone forever, you have a right to it. At a full table, you may say that you have 1/10th of the blind money, just for illustration. At a short, this equity increases to 1/6, because there are less players. That's why blind stealing and defense is so much more important: you have a greater piece of your value in those blinds.

Also, if you're winning the same from UTG as the button, either in full or in short, you've most likely got some problems somewhere. Again, your winrate UTG in short should be higher than your winrate UTG in full.

There are other reasons for short being more profitable than full. For example, the TOP states that when your opponents make mistakes, you profit. Assuming your opponents will make the same amount of mistakes in either game, you should make more money in short, since they will be playing more hands/hour and thus making more mistakes/hour.

[jukofyork]

Hi, sample size is just under 20k hands for 6max, so may need more, but I also notice the same happening for other winning players who have moved (it seems like the two blinds roughly negate the winnings from two other position in both 6max and full-ring for them aswell).
Again this is only 0.5/1, as I didn't want to risk too much at 6max and felt better to start their to gain some insight. But beginning to think that I should continue with full-ring, until find it getting tougher then try 6max again?

Thanks for the reply, Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[jukofyork]

Hi [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, if you're winning the same from UTG as the button, either in full or in short, you've most likely got some problems somewhere. Again, your winrate UTG in short should be higher than your winrate UTG in full.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I should have made this more clear, the values were not my actual winrates (just for iliustration of the general pattern I see for me and other players who made the move), and yes for both 6max and full-ring i am do have the normal trend going from UTG to Button [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But maybee need more hands to tell if my UTG short is actually higher than full, but could also be the fact I new to short and maybee need to stick at it longer and see if my play improves...

[ QUOTE ]
Ed Miller had an article about this misconception in the 2+2 magazine a month or two ago. Essentially, you are viewing the blinds as a sunk cost, something that you have "paid." But that isn't quite true. That money isn't gone forever, you have a right to it. At a full table, you may say that you have 1/10th of the blind money, just for illustration. At a short, this equity increases to 1/6, because there are less players. That's why blind stealing and defense is so much more important: you have a greater piece of your value in those blinds.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I have also noticed I do lose less from the blinds short than full (and can see this is for the reasons you mention), but again need more short hands to get more accurate figures. It could be that my blind play needs working on, but again I looked though many other winning players stats who also moved and they seem to have about the same -EV from blinds in both short and full as I do.

I did think somewhere the data didn't make sense and that i could have some misconception here, and beggining to think i should try to concentrate on my blind play (possibly the other winning player's stats i looked into have similar problems with blind play too...).

What should I be aiming for in the blinds? Say for example i lose 0.1BB/hand in BB at full ring, should I be aiming for about 0.06BB/hand 6 handed or is this too optimistic?

Thanks for the reply, Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[jukofyork]

[ QUOTE ]
There are other reasons for short being more profitable than full. For example, the TOP states that when your opponents make mistakes, you profit. Assuming your opponents will make the same amount of mistakes in either game, you should make more money in short, since they will be playing more hands/hour and thus making more mistakes/hour.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another possible reason might be my table selection stratergy at 6max. When playing full-ring, I do use my experience to try to find the players who are making the most mistakes and exploit these mistakes. It could be that my lack of 6max experience means I am not selecting such good tables, due to not being able to identfy the most profitable mistakes. I am even wondering if I might be trying to select tables based on full-ring mistakes criteria, when in actual fact the mistakes I should be looking for are different in nature for both games?

Juk [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]