A very quick question. 6 MAX

[silvershade]

[ QUOTE ]
Your advantage is dramatically increased over bad players because you can isolate them more often and steal their blinds more often. Not to mention you have more opportunities to outplay postflop (you don't have to showdown the best hand as much).

[/ 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.

Generally though there are of course more decisions to be made which might be an increased advantage if it werent for the increased aggression in these games combined with the fact that your own hand will generally be weaker than in full ring both of which will blunt any advantage gained here.

Finally, I'd also observe that if your advantage were actually increased the poker sites wouldnt implement these tables because the fish would go broke to fast, its better for the sites that they go broke slower thus generating more rake for them instead of profit for you. Oddly my main observation of 6-max so far is that the rake is horrendous.

Fairly obviously though, if the level concerned is full of weak tighties you can make a killing by simply running them over though.

[milesdyson]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]
this all translates to a really big advantage.


[ QUOTE ]
Finally, I'd also observe that if your advantage were actually increased the poker sites wouldnt implement these tables because the fish would go broke to fast, its better for the sites that they go broke slower thus generating more rake for them instead of profit for you.

[/ QUOTE ]
it's not like the game is so dramatically different that bad players lose their bankrolls in 19 hands. plus, all the guys who love to bluff and, in general, be retards at the tables really like to play shorthanded. also, more hands are played per minute at shorthanded tables than at full tables, so in terms of rake generation per player, the shorthanded tables are good for the site.

[deception5]

Miles is exactly right. Just to add regarding this section:

[ QUOTE ]
Generally though there are of course more decisions to be made which might be an increased advantage if it werent for the increased aggression in these games combined with the fact that your own hand will generally be weaker than in full ring both of which will blunt any advantage gained here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are looking at this all wrong. If everyone has a weaker hand then all it means is that you have to adjust your game. Hand strengths are relative. If you are entering the pot with stronger hands than your opponents you have an advantage. This is true if you are playing 15% of your hands versus an opponent who plays 30% or if you play 25% versus an opponent who plays 50%.

And increased aggression means nothing more than "players are willing to put in more money with marginal hands". How is that a bad thing?

[silvershade]

[ QUOTE ]
this all translates to a really big advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed but this advantage would be bigger still in full ring where your average hand will be stronger, remember the weak players hand is probably pretty much the same in either game, yours isn't and you are paying the blinds roughly twice as often forcing you to look for more value in every small edge, you are doing this precisely because your edge is reduced not because it is increased.

[ QUOTE ]
it's not like the game is so dramatically different that bad players lose their bankrolls in 19 hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed they will probably take more hands to lose their bankrolls. Of course on the subject of bankrolls you will need a larger bankroll because of the variance which means your cash is working less efficiently.

[ QUOTE ]
plus, all the guys who love to bluff and, in general, be retards at the tables really like to play shorthanded. also, more hands are played per minute at shorthanded tables than at full tables, so in terms of rake generation per player, the shorthanded tables are good for the site.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are certainly popular but I doubt that new players are signing up for 6-max, they simply switch from full ring.

Anyway I agree that on sites like Party your advantage is larger but only because these are the games where the weaker players are to be found, I'm playing 6-max myself at the moment for this very reason.

[silvershade]

[ QUOTE ]
You are looking at this all wrong. If everyone has a weaker hand then all it means is that you have to adjust your game. Hand strengths are relative. If you are entering the pot with stronger hands than your opponents you have an advantage. This is true if you are playing 15% of your hands versus an opponent who plays 30% or if you play 25% versus an opponent who plays 50%.

[/ QUOTE ]

What if the poor player plays pretty much the same hands in both games? Why are we assuming that they don't?

[ QUOTE ]
And increased aggression means nothing more than "players are willing to put in more money with marginal hands". How is that a bad thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

It increases variance which demands a larger bankroll to play at the same level.

[milesdyson]

you're assuming that they don't by saying "they always call against blind steals."

but really this argument is pointless - i don't even know why i got involved. if you're trying to say that 6-max is less profitable than full ring, i say it depends on your style, not on the guys you play against.

your variance comment is funny. my shorthanded variance is not much different than my full ring variance was (i don't even know which one was higher, but they were similar), and i don't care about variance, i care about profitability.

[silvershade]

[ QUOTE ]
you're assuming that they don't by saying "they always call against blind steals."

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats simply an observation of the nature of play at the lowest 2 levels on Party, nothing more.

[ QUOTE ]
but really this argument is pointless - i don't even know why i got involved. if you're trying to say that 6-max is less profitable than full ring, i say it depends on your style, not on the guys you play against.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats an absurd position. You think it doesnt matter who you play against? So you can make as much off of top line pros as off of drunks who dont know the game? Of course it matters who you play against!

[ QUOTE ]
your variance comment is funny

[/ QUOTE ]

Not as funny as claiming the opposition doesnt matter.

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed but this advantage would be bigger still in full ring where your average hand will be stronger

[/ QUOTE ]
Would be? Sure.

Is? Certainly not.

The worst players at any given poker site seem to gravitate to 6-max. About half of my Party fish list has gone to 6-max. That's when I started giving a thought to playing there myself.

Full ring has tightened way up since the heyday of online poker (they say - I wasn't playing then). 6-max is essentially what full-ring used to be, profitability- and variance-wise.

[milesdyson]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats an absurd position. You think it doesnt matter who you play against? So you can make as much off of top line pros as off of drunks who dont know the game? Of course it matters who you play against!

[/ QUOTE ]
i'm saying that the opposition is equally bad in different ways, and that it is up to you to exploit this. if you like to play a more passive game, then you are probably better off at playing full ring games. if you like a faster pace and more shorthanded action, then you play 6-max.

no wait, of course i was saying that pros = drunks. OF COURSE!
<font color="WHITE">TONIGHT IS THE WORST NIGHT AT THE MICRO LIMIT FORUM EVER.[/COLOR]

[deception5]

[ QUOTE ]
What if the poor player plays pretty much the same hands in both games? Why are we assuming that they don't?


[/ QUOTE ]

If they play 30% of their hands at full ring they are a poor player at full ring. If they play 30% of their hands at 6-max they are playing much closer to correct. Just because they are a poor full ring player doesn't mean they are a poor 6-max player. There are still plenty of bad 6-max players though and I assure you, it's a much bigger advantage to have a 90% vp$ip to your right at 6-max than at full ring.

[ QUOTE ]
It increases variance which demands a larger bankroll to play at the same level.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok but this isn't really what we were talking about. Yes you should have 500BB to play in the most aggressive games but so what? This doesn't mean your winrate is going to be lower.

I can argue with you all day on this, but I don't think it's really productive.