6 Max or Full Table NL?

[Milky]

Subject line says it all, pretty much. Which do you prefer and why? I've been playing a bit of the 6 max $25NL buyins and they're pretty good but I was wondering how the full tables are in comparison? Easier to make money possibly?

[HUSKER'66]

[ QUOTE ]
Subject line says it all, pretty much. Which do you prefer and why? I've been playing a bit of the 6 max $25NL buyins and they're pretty good but I was wondering how the full tables are in comparison? Easier to make money possibly?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on my mood. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] If I'm feeling a little frisky I'll find a shorthanded table. With the blinds coming every five hands, I'm going to have to open it up more than my normal full ring play.

I guess you could look at the full ring 10 player tables as having more money. If you play tight aggressive and pick your spots, you are typically going to have another extra $100 on the table to pick at.

Play well,

Husker

[Milky]

These were my thoughts after playing a bit of SH NL. More money to access at the ring tables. Keep the opinions coming!

[HUSKER'66]

Milky ,

If you've been having success at SH, you've obviously let out your aggressive side. Utilize and take advantage of that post flop aggression that you've developed, but realize you can afford to tighten up your starting hand requirements a tad.

Make sense?

Play well, (and give full NL a try!) [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Husker

[Tilt]

This is a good question. If any of the regulars have any long term win rates from the two to compare and contrast that would be helpful.

At SH play, you get more from the worst players cause you have fewer opponents to share their losings with. But you rarely get the large multiway pots of full ring games.

[TrailofTears]

Well, for me the SH tables are better. Sometimes I even sit at a table with only 3 other people. I enjoy a little bullying and some aggressive play (obviously within reason). It is more my playing style. I have a harder time tightening up my cards for the full-table games.

Another thought is that since I play more hands in SH tables than full, I don't have to multi-table as many tables, so I can develop better reads on the other players (who I can bully, who I can/can't bluff, who will bet into me when I have a big hand, etc.) When I play full table, I play less hands and they take longer, so to fill my poker needs, I play more tables, but get less of a feel for my opponents (victims [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]).

There is also more variance at the SH games, but if that doesn't bother you then they are fun and profitable.

I agree that there are less multiway pots and those types of situations at SH, but I prefer consistent action to the droughts and storms of the full tables.

It really comes down to playing style and what best fits your game. Good luck figuring it out. Also, have fun.

- ToT

[BradleyT]

I had to clear 550 hands of my party bonus in 4 hours on Monday so I gave NL $25 6 Max a try. I normally play full o/8 $2/$4 limit ($5/$10 w/kill B&M) or $25-50 PLO/8.

I think I might be playing too tight (16% VP$IP after 2,000 hands) but it's been profitable so far.

[Hammuh]

I've been wondering about this too.

Check this out

[Milky]

Thanks for the link. I think my playstyle might make 6max a better choice for me. Thanks for the input all

[GoSox]

I prefer the full table. I am very tight and patient, I like to see as many hands as possible for as little as possible and make my money when I hit big. The few times I've played SH it seems to be a better game for loose aggressive.