Anybody playing $5-10 full lately?

[ChicagoTroy]

The question I was getting at is if the $5-10 full is beatable, it is almost certainly at a lower rate than 6-max. 2.75-3 BB/100 on a consistent basis is probably impossible on full, but not on 6-max. So is it possible to beat the full game at a rate that exceeds the rake to a reasonable degree? Several months ago, the consensus was that $3-6 - $5-10 6-max was the logical progression, because $5-10 full sucked too hard.

[JackyChilds]

[ 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 ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are correct. My point wasn`t relative to other players at the table. I was referring to the fact that it simply costs more to play 6 max for any period of time compared to full ring because the orbit is smaller.

[kevyk]

[ QUOTE ]


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?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You are correct. My point wasn`t relative to other players at the table. I was referring to the fact that it simply costs more to play 6 max for any period of time compared to full ring because the orbit is smaller.

[/ QUOTE ]

I won't claim to be an expert, but it seems to me that paying the blinds more frequently is zero-sum and therefore does not amount to a tax on your winnings. You don't just "pay" the blinds; you have equity in pots you play from the blinds. Blind-stealing and defense will play a greater role in a shorthanded game, and you should play somewhat looser, but that's about it. IIRC, Ed Miller wrote an interesting article about this phenomenon in the April 2+2 Magazine.

[JackyChilds]

Just read the article. Makes perfect sense. Thanks for pointing it out, somehow I missed it in April. Actually it points out one of my flaws that I desperately need to work on: I`m a habitual blind folder to a raise.

[sy_or_bust]

5/10 6max deals more hands/hr also. Of course the blinds move faster, but 2-3 BB/100 has been sustainable with the unusual amount of wild LAGs and loose-passives.

[ChicagoTroy]

[ QUOTE ]
5/10 6max deals more hands/hr also. Of course the blinds move faster, but 2-3 BB/100 has been sustainable with the unusual amount of wild LAGs and loose-passives.

[/ QUOTE ]

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

C'mon, Sy.

[TiK]

[ QUOTE ]


I won't claim to be an expert, but it seems to me that paying the blinds more frequently is zero-sum and therefore does not amount to a tax on your winnings. You don't just "pay" the blinds; you have equity in pots you play from the blinds. Blind-stealing and defense will play a greater role in a shorthanded game, and you should play somewhat looser, but that's about it. IIRC, Ed Miller wrote an interesting article about this phenomenon in the April 2+2 Magazine.

[/ QUOTE ]