|
|
|
|
#1
08-26-2005, 01:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
6max vs full table?
It seems like more and more 6max tables are showing up,
and the people to play them. I would like to hear peoples thoughts on the pros and cons of the 6max compared to the normal tables. I know on the 6max a player can open up his game a little. Or a lot depending on the player. And more hands per hour could be played which would help with clearing bonuses. Is there much of an adjustment moving to the 6max? 
|
|
#2
08-26-2005, 02:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6max vs full table?
Pretty major adjustments needs to be made. Head over to the Heads Up/Shorthanded Forum and read everything you can for a week or so.
I jumped to the 6-max games exclusively a month ago. Benefits: - My play from the blinds has improved dramatically - My aggression is used more and more often in the right spots - Weaker opponents for the most part (and much easier to isolate very poor players) - More hands per hour (with more rakeback) - Overall, I think my game has improved more than it ever has in a one-month stretch
|
|
#4
08-26-2005, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6max vs full table?
6 max is so awful for NL, IMO (at least in smaller stakes)
players are generally only playing back at you with semi premium hands anyway, the bigger the field the better of a chance I have of getting my AA or KK play plus theres a lot of good loose passive games where people are awful as for limit/higher stakes I have no idea, you didn't specify either of those. Limit is more of an action game so I'd think 6 max would be best for it
|
|
#6
08-26-2005, 04:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6max vs full table?
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 6 max is so awful for NL, IMO (at least in smaller stakes) [/ QUOTE ] Spoken like one who has never played 6 max in SSNL. [/ QUOTE ] I have and It's even more boring than full ring to me. I don't see how you could read my post and think I've never played it--You make it sound like only a few of the most daring people have tried it I think my hourly rate is even higher for SSNL 6 max. But my scientific analysis concluded years ago that it is excessively gay. I shouldn't have said it's awful I should say that I really dislike playing it [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] [ QUOTE ] I remember someone here saying that 6 max Small Stakes NL games are the ones with the least variance and the best BB/100 possibilty. Is this true? [/ QUOTE ] I think it's incorrect on both accounts, you have far less tough decisions in full ring and while your hourly rate may be higher in 6 max--the BB/100 will be higher for full usually. I don't have any evidence to back this up except my own data which no one cares about, plus and this seems to be the general opinion of most 2+2ers.
|
|
#7
08-26-2005, 03:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6max vs full table?
For both no limit holdem and limit holdem, playing with ten people at a table is ridiculously lame and is very boring compared to playing shorthanded. It makes sense for a casino to cram lots of people onto each table because they have to hire a dealer for each table, use floor space for it, worry about short games breaking, etc. So casinos made 9- and 10-handed the standard and we had to reluctantly accept it. But online, there is no reason why we need to cram so many people into each table, since opening more tables has no real cost. So, the market is shifting toward the more interesting and fun shorthanded games as technology makes it possible. Enjoy it. This is progress. This is how a free market works. It is beautiful.
|
|
#8
08-26-2005, 03:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 6max vs full table?
Short handed opens the game up more and forces you to play more hands. For bad players, that means more mistakes, which, in turn, is a bigger advantage to better players. Forces you to play more hands, play with more aggression and improve player reading skills. Altogether, it attracts the fish (more action) and the sharks (more fish, more hands/hr, more opportunities to take advantage of poor play).
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
