A very quick question. 6 MAX

[Stealthy]

Silvershade you seem to be assuming that we have to play weaker hands at 6 max than we do at full ring. This is not really true. My VP$IP for full is around 18% whilst for 6Max it was a little tight at 23%. You are not playing more hands cause you are "lagging it up" but because you are in position a lot more often. The players at 6 Max are generally playing FAR weaker hands than at full ring so even when you raise in the CO with QJ off you very often have much the best of it. You still play solid poker just quicker.

I agree. MrWookie did a post on this recently and pointed out that hand selection doesn't differ radically from full ring as long as you remember you are always MP2 or later. All other things being equal, your VPIP% would go up simply because you are never in early position.

I only discovered 6max this weekend so have limited experience - but hand selection by many players is truly awful.

I also find having only 5 opponents to read means I can make better decisions for specific circumstances.

I don't play on Party. The tables I have played so far have had VPIP% 40-55, PFR% 3-7 and most player total aggression 0-1, making it v. easy to avoid mixing it with the occasional good player.

Ive skimmed the rest of this thread, so if i cover anything twice then i apologise....

27% WSD is wrong. seriously, wrong. i have no idea how its possible to get anywhere near this number. maybe its an error in my play that i dont go to showdown more often, but 27% is seriously insane... i doubt (although it is possible in extreme cases)that this is variance after 5k hands.

maybe your calling down without correct odds? calling down when obviously beat? simply playing too many hands? table selection even?

maybe some more exp players could back me up or shut me up here, but surely WSD should be 45%+ at the very least?

[ QUOTE ]
maybe some more exp players could back me up or shut me up here, but surely WSD should be 45%+ at the very least?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you confusing WSD (WENT to showdown) with W$SD (won % when went to showdown)?

The former will certainly never be up to 45% and is more likely to be around 30%. The latter should be around 50%.

[Stealthy]

[ QUOTE ]
Ive skimmed the rest of this thread, so if i cover anything twice then i apologise....

27% WSD is wrong. seriously, wrong. i have no idea how its possible to get anywhere near this number. maybe its an error in my play that i dont go to showdown more often, but 27% is seriously insane... i doubt (although it is possible in extreme cases)that this is variance after 5k hands.

maybe your calling down without correct odds? calling down when obviously beat? simply playing too many hands? table selection even?

maybe some more exp players could back me up or shut me up here, but surely WSD should be 45%+ at the very least?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep 27% WSD is corect with W$SD at around 55%. I simply wasn't hitting anything (I was cold-decked for 3/4 of these hands at least) and for many many hands I got played back at when I did not even have an Ace high to show down. Remember this is over just 5K hands so variance is king I guess. I actually paid off more hands than was good for me for the times I did show-down Ace high hands that I only remember winning one of.

Also something that IS a big factor in my WSD % is that a lot of the pots I did win were when my opponent folded either on the turn or river. I did win a lot of pots that way. I was disappointed at how few of my strong hands got paid off. And I do play aggressively on all streets with a large variety of hands so it was not a case of my playing rockish and not getting paid that way. A final point in this is that the time of day that I play is morning/afternoon in the US so a lot of tighties at the tables. Another reason to move to 6 Max.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
maybe some more exp players could back me up or shut me up here, but surely WSD should be 45%+ at the very least?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you confusing WSD (WENT to showdown) with W$SD (won % when went to showdown)?

The former will certainly never be up to 45% and is more likely to be around 30%. The latter should be around 50%.

[/ QUOTE ]

ah ok, ignore my post then. i assumed because you said your WSD was showing your variance you were saying W$SD.... 27 is ok then

[DMBFan23]

[ QUOTE ]
seemed so much easier to read than at full ring.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find the opposite to be the case a lot of the time. way more betting into the raiser, checkraises are less defined, and more bluffing on the river

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
seemed so much easier to read than at full ring.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find the opposite to be the case a lot of the time. way more betting into the raiser, checkraises are less defined, and more bluffing on the river

[/ QUOTE ]
What you say is true (and you can add my experience that there's a lot more limping with AA/KK), but oddly, I don't find that a read problem - it's just more to make note of.

On individual hands, sure, with trickier play you're going to get "suckered" more often - a lot of the time that's not a read issue, it's just poker.

[Stealthy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
seemed so much easier to read than at full ring.

[/ QUOTE ]

I find the opposite to be the case a lot of the time. way more betting into the raiser, checkraises are less defined, and more bluffing on the river

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I just found this so at $1 $2. Most players seemed to be well defined who either bluffed far too much or only bet with a hand. If I get to the river I will show down most made hands for the sake of 1 extra bet. The main way I found it easier was in the case of the maniacs and I had 1 at 2 of the 3 tables I played last night. Both would cap every street with any pair and were complete idiots. The first one sucked out on me a lot and others at the table and ran real hot, but the 2nd one capped a hand on the turn and river with me when he had 44 and I had the nut straight. Easy money.

A third LAG player but not a maniac was running over a table when I joined and sat on his left. I took him on and made 30BB off of him in 30 hands just by playing back at him and punishing him for his loose play. I know I had to catch some cards to do this but found him VERY easy to read.

If I got bet into as the pre-flop raisor I did not worry about it overly much. Sometimes I dropped straight away or if I had overcards called and dropped to the turn bet. I am not interested in trying to get a weak player off of his small pair that he likely has if I have nothing, I am just looking to get paid off when I do have a hand. A couple of players donk bet me on the turn after calling my flop bet and I raised both of these as they were tight players and they both dropped. I felt they were testing me to see if I had anything rather than having a hand themselves when a check-raise was more the obvious play if they had any strength. Maybe I was just lucky that I got both right.

The calling down is truly awful getting called down with Jack high seemed a regular occurance!

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know what level thats true at but in .5/1 and 1/2 it just isnt true ( at least not in the times I play ), your blind steals will get called virtually all the time by bad players and you cant isolate because other bad players will call down too if they hold any kind of draw. I guess if the level you play is weak tight it might be true though.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good thing. If you regularly steal with hands like A5, and he defends with T7, you will make a profit in the long run. Smile when they defend.