Counter-intuitive: Are full ring games better for a LAG than 6 max?

Hi, I'm fairly new here, but I was curious what people thought about this. Some of these ideas came out of some things I've been experimenting with on Stars 200NL tables and from a post I read this week.

I was reading a post from the digest last week ( here ) and a post by 4_2_it got me thinking about this. Here is the post:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
6max is where its at guys...



[/ QUOTE ]

I've noticed a lot of 2+2ers play 6-max. I was wondering why? I've always played full ring, partly because my natural style is fairly tight. I've heard it said that shorthanded play can allow poorer players to do better as they may not be making a mistake playing their normal range of marginal hands. Would I be right in thinking that the attraction of shorthanded NL is being able to use selective aggression to win a lot of hands PF or on the flop?

[/ 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 ]

I think this suggests that good Loose Aggessive players may find more profitable full ring games than 6-max games. My default style (which I switch up alot) is LAG, but I have always prefered a full game to 6-max because I'd rather play against a mix of weak-tight and tight-aggressive players (extracting from the former and pretty much staying out of the way of the later the few hands they play). Also, what I have found is that if you push TAGs and weak-tighties enough, many will start to try to play my style back at me, which is usually to my advantage 1) because I can tighten up, and 2)I am used to making unclear decisions and they are not 3)The game starts looking an awful lot like the crazy loose/passive games that you see in CA cardrooms, that I play all the time, which I think also gives me an edge.

I'm sure I am missing something here, but I am curious what other people think.

[beavens]

i thought that 6max catered more to LAGs and full-ring was more for TAGs

[Isura]

I tend to agree with you. It is much easier being a lag in a full ring game since players are content to give up the blinds and small pots. There are more players at the table to pick on, so I find players are less likely to loosen up and start playing back at me. But 6-max is still a more +EV game if you are a good (ie LAG != good in general) player.

[Isura]

[ QUOTE ]
i thought that 6max catered more to LAGs and full-ring was more for TAGs

[/ QUOTE ]

My belief is that 6-max is the more +EV game for better players. Weaker players (either lag or tag) will usually do better in full ring games.

Hehe, ouch I think.

That is is actually a very good point, and I do enjoy playing 6-max (and used to do it more the ring games online), but where I am seeing a big difference, is not when I am running over a table (which is really not the best thing that can happen), but when the people start to play crazy because they need to stand up to me, which ironically, makes this play more like a 6-max game, only with people who are not suited to playing one at all. Sure, a really juicy 6-max table is probably more +EV, but this has seemed (without any statistics to back it up) better than the average 6-max game that you see.

[xorbie]

Full ring is better for TAG where the AG is really pronounced. Value bet into infinity and value bet pound the few loose players while working up a good image by stealing constantly from the tight players.

That's how it works in an ideal world anyway.