differences between 6max vs. full ring

wslee00 · #1 12-21-2005, 02:17 AM

Couldn't find anything within this forum on this - but I'm looking into playing some 6max NL HE instead of full ring - which is currently all I know. For those that have played both full ring and 6 max - what do you feel are the major differences between the games?

I've been playing in the $25NL 6max games (usually a $100NL full ring player), and I'm fortunately up 1.5PTBB/100 over about 800 hands. I'm sure this BB shoudl be higher even though my sample size isn't that great...

jsnipes28 · #2 12-21-2005, 02:36 AM

There aren't nearly as many rocks in 6max which allows you to get paid off more on your hands. There are more short stacks and more idiots as well. You must mix up your play and you cant play 15/3 like some people do at full ring. You need to use position more and isolation more as well i think.

You also find yourself in a lot of marginal situations and must make more tough decisions. That being said i think it is much more profitable.

wslee00 · #3 12-21-2005, 05:09 PM

any other advice out there?

subzero · #4 12-21-2005, 05:15 PM

Here's a good post: Six Max Baby Steps

aces_dad · #5 12-21-2005, 05:35 PM

Even though that's limit it's a great post.

6max will improve your game faster as you'll be playing around the blinds more often (stealing / defending) compared to full ring, and you also get to open raise in MP/LP more often than in full ring, so you'll need to open up somewhat.

I like the fact you play hands against the same villians pretty often so you can get a read and experience quicker. Now that I've been playing it full ring seems more boring to me, though YMMV.

4_2_it · #6 12-21-2005, 05:40 PM

I said this[ QUOTE ]
From my experience, full ring is more of a rock garden than 6-max. Rocks and set farmers pay a lot more in in blinds and missed draws so many tend to avoid the 'action' tables.

So if you are adept at taking money from rocks and set farmers full ring is probably very profitable for you. If you are better at extracting from uber LAGs and maniacs then 6-max is optimal. Neither is 'better', but it is important to understand the differences.

[/ QUOTE ]

in this thread

#7 12-21-2005, 06:17 PM

I've been playing a lot of NL 50 full lately and previously played NL 25 6-max.

NL full is much more limpy PF and passive on the flop.

6-max is more tight-aggressive PF. Harder to know the players hand strength, but easy to feel the players out cuz there are less of them. Seems like 6-max is much more about outplaying the opponent and stealing many small pots.

Full I seem to get paid off more regularly with hands like 33 that I call a PF raise with and flop something like K3A.

Full seems much less volatile than 6max. I'm new to full though as I always used to play 6max. Only logged probably 20 hours at full NL this whole year. (Tons of full limit though)