|
|
#1
05-14-2005, 12:02 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Is 6-max the default format?
Is 6-max tables the assumed game type here?
I play full-ring, and often this will not be taken into account in my posts unless I specifically state that. I'm beginning to think that full-ring play is a bit of an oddity around here. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] --Dave. 
|
|
#3
05-14-2005, 10:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is 6-max the default format?
Kind of according to SS/2 the default might be 9-handed. 10, 9-8, 6-5, (4-3), 2 are all different, in the same situations too. Fuller ring is more about (basic) strategy (cards) and shorthanded more about tactics/feel. Something in the middle is just perfect, though there are personal preferences but the best is 9-8 handed that has early positions, too. There's not really any "default" until it's used as a standard to talk about something and then other factors are also there, like the limit.
|
|
#4
05-14-2005, 10:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is 6-max the default format?
[ QUOTE ]
if you are tight. full ring is better for you. I might move back to full ring as its more mindless and I'm actually able to bluff more at full ring. [/ QUOTE ] Wow. I find the opposite to be true. The full rings are much more weak/tight so you can steal a lot of blinds and take down pots uncontested. The 6-maxes are a bit crazy with people pushing preflop 69s, small pp, and the like. They will also call down with any piece of the flop if they put you on overcards (which is almost always).
|
|
#5
05-14-2005, 11:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Is 6-max the default format?
[ QUOTE ]
if you are tight. full ring is better for you. I might move back to full ring as its more mindless and I'm actually able to bluff more at full ring. [/ QUOTE ] Oddly enough, I've found the same thing. However, this doesn't have anything to do with my question. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
