Fact or Fiction?: 6-max is More "Swingy" than Full

[Lost Wages]

I'm constantly reading posts bemoaning how volatile 6-max is compared to full games. Often it seems to be attributed to the "wilder" nature of 6-max, that is, more deceptive and tricky play.

Since making the switch from full to 6-max, my standard deviation has dropped from 16.0BB/100 to 14.7BB/100. Some others had wondered aloud why thier SD dropped when they move to 6-max. I suspect it is simply a natural consequence of short handed pots; the best hand going in tends to hold-up more frequently.

So it would appear that 6-max is actually less "swingy" (lower variance). Why then is there a common perception that 6-max is more volatile? I propose three possible reasons:

1) Players win rates (BB/100) tend to drop when they make the move from full to 6-max until they make the needed adjustments. They attribute thier lower performance to extended periods of "running bad"

2) Players moving to 5/10 6-max are often moving up in limits at the same time (typically from 3/6). This leads greater swings in terms of absolute dollars which, psychologically at least, feels more volatile.

3) Time compression. More hands played per hour means more hands played for the same session length and consequently, greater wins and losses per session will be observed.

Thoughts?
Lost Wages