A few Qs for you SH guys who used to play Full Ring

[ QUOTE ]
In 100 hands at a full table, you pay 10 big blinds and 10 small blinds.

In 100 hands at a 6-max table, you pay 16.67 big blinds and 16.67 small blinds.

The more often you play those positions (which are -EV), the more negative effect it will have on your winrate. Unless i'm just missing something obvious.

-d

[/ QUOTE ]

by this logic, every single person who goes from full ring to 6 max should see a decline in winrate due to increased hands in the blinds... which obviously does not hold water.

what you are missing is that your equity in the blinds increases (i would imagine proportionally to the extra hands you are in the blinds - but dont quote me on that) in a 6max game.

that, or im really really stupid...

[Victor]

[ QUOTE ]
In 100 hands at a full table, you pay 10 big blinds and 10 small blinds.

In 100 hands at a 6-max table, you pay 16.67 big blinds and 16.67 small blinds.

The more often you play those positions (which are -EV), the more negative effect it will have on your winrate. Unless i'm just missing something obvious.

-d

[/ QUOTE ]

what you are missing is that you play the button, co and hijack more often which offsets your blinds.

[Stack]

[ QUOTE ]
In 100 hands at a full table, you pay 10 big blinds and 10 small blinds.

In 100 hands at a 6-max table, you pay 16.67 big blinds and 16.67 small blinds.

The more often you play those positions (which are -EV), the more negative effect it will have on your winrate. Unless i'm just missing something obvious.

-d

[/ QUOTE ]

In the blinds, your EV is less negative short than full. Remember Ed Miller's article in the Magazine?

I don't think this is the reason.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
the more negative effect it will have on your winrate. Unless i'm just missing something obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, one of the things you're missing is that most players lose about 1/2 as much in the blinds in a 6-max game as they do in a full game.

Another thing you're missing is that you get to always play in late position, where your winrate will be much higher than the early positions in a full game.

[waffle]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes, one of the things you're missing is that most players lose about 1/2 as much in the blinds in a 6-max game as they do in a full game.


[/ QUOTE ]

right. in other words, your hands in the blinds have more equity in 6max because you're up against a fewer number of hands. in full, there are 4 more chances for premium hands to be dealt against your blind.

[StellarWind]

The rake is much higher shorthanded. Half as many players are paying way more than half as much rake per hand. You need to collect a lot more mistakes shorthanded just to offset the extra cost to play.

[Wynton]

With regard to the second question:

I actually do not feel that it is an "easy" 3-bet from the button in six-max with either AJo or KQo. I suppose I usually 3-bet with AJ, but I find KQo to be a closer decision.

And now that you mention it, I think I might actually be more apt to 3-bet at full-ring, so long as I think I can get it HU. For at six-max, I believe people are much more skeptical of 3-betters and so it's less likely that you gain fold equity.

On the other hand, I hardly ever play full tables now, so perhaps that's wrong.

[Silverback]

[ QUOTE ]
Question 2: MP2 open raises in a full ring game, I'm on the button and see AJo. Is this an easy 3 bet? Its analogous to saying, UTG raises and I'm OTB in a 6max game. To me thats an easy 3 bet. How bout KQo? I would routinely 3 bet in 6 max but what about full ring?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not just about position, its about the player in that position, as well as players left to act after you. Will they fold to a 3 bet. Even then you have to consider how the players play post flop, theres a much wider range of players at 6 max, especially if they are aggressive.
SO AJo and KQo are sometmes 3 betting hands. AJo easier of the 2 for sure, but a fold against some very tight raisers.

[me454555]

I'm not so sure that's true. I recently checked some pt stats and here's teh results

23k hands of 3/6 (6 max) - 3.18% of the pot
30k hands of 3/6 (full) - 3.44% of the pot

As a side note, the 3/6 full hands were all played before the party rake hike so the numbers might be even more skewed.

So I'm still left wondering, why are our winrates lower @ 6 max than full? It would appear we have a greater skill advantage over the other players and yet our winrates are not as high. The paradox continues

[sweetjazz]

You're missing the point. Though there is slightly less rake per pot, you win more pots SH than full ring, so you pay the rake more often.

Look at the rake paid stats on the first page of PokerTracker to see that you are paying more rake SH.

The rake is one reason your winrate is not as high as you think it should be. The other is variance. None of your winrates are necessarily that close to your true winrate.