PP 1/2 SH vs 3/6 SH

So I decided to take a stab at the PP 3/6 tables for a few hundred hands. At first I tried to play my game, not being too weak tight and being afraid to put in the extra bets. I am sure that I was a little more tight than I should have been.

Just like some people have been telling me, yes there are more TAG's than at 1/2, but there seem to be just as many LAG's. The funny thing is, in this brief experiment, at each table I played the loosest players (always VPIP of 50+)both tight and aggressive seemed to be winning the most. I tried not to let the 80/5/1's get me on tilt when they drew out on me, but it was just so amazing how profitable those players seem to be. Yes I know in the long run they are probobly losing players, but it really made me think.

At the end of this trial I did end up in the positive by about 10BB's. Not bad. Worth concidering in the long term.

[Gyre]

I took the step från PP 1/2 to 3/6 not too long ago and I must say that the 3/6 game is quite soft if you practise some kind of table selection.
Just like kapw7 says, if you have the BR to make it, go crush the 3/6 game [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Gyre]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you want a stopover at 2/4 SH, Eurobet (now on PokerRoom network) has a 100% match up to $600, will need around 6k hands to clear. It's a pretty sweet bonus and will clear pretty fast at the 2/4 SH. It's 5max at pokerroom, and the software takes a little getting used to, but man are the players bad there. This morning I had a guy to my left who was 93% vpip, like zero aggression. Also, you can sit at any open seat, so you can get position pretty easily.

Either way, a $600 bonus is a sweet boost for the bankroll.

[/ QUOTE ]

The rake there makes it not really worth it.

[/ QUOTE ]

According to the rake chart, http://www.pokerroom.com/support/faq...ions.php?id=35 , it deosn't look bad at all, or am I missing someting?

EDIT: Ops, thought they men Big Bets nog Big Blinds. That makes it a bit worse [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

What type of stats do you generally look for for the table or what seem to be the most profitable? VPIP +35? PFR <10?

or do you more look for individual players?

I generally do both, but am curious to what has worked best for others.

[Gyre]

I only look at the players stats, as long as I got two morons to my right I dont care if the other 3 guys are TAG's.

Do you have the bankroll to leapfrog from 1-2 to 3-6?

Since your 1-2 sample size is small, the short term runs of LAGs and calling stations still strikes you as remarkable (though I too can be incredulous at times) and there are good 2-4 options, might make sense to go that route.

I am limited to pokerroom at the moment (mac user) and agree that there are very juicy 2-4 games, though table selection can be pretty small and it is 5 max vs. 6 max.

Arrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgh! Please stick with me here, I know this post is long and may seem to drag on, but there is a purpose, and I really need some advice.

The experiment is finally over, after a few thousand hands, and I must say that I am completely exhausted and my confidence diminished.

As usual I started off the trial with a 50BB positive swing with some of the usual swings, although a bit more drastic than I am used to. Followed by this I took 33BB negative swing quickley following it up with a regain to my peak.

Since then I have taken a nose dive of 67 BB filled with ups and downs, mostly downs. Yes I know people always talk about how they have had swings of 200+, but it just seems that 3/6 is a completely different world that 1/2 by leaps and bounds.

I know that my sample size for 1/2 is relatively small (7K)but I had never seen swings this bad during this stretch, not even close. It has mostly been 7K hands of up up and away with around 5BB/100. I know inevidably I will hit the wall and run bad, I am well aware.

After experiencing both levels of play I would have to say that the primary difference between 1/2 and 3/6 are the aggressiveness/skill/luck of the LAGtards. They kick my butt at every single table I play, even when they are on my right. No matter how I adjust my play to them I was always just handing loads and loads of money over to them. The TAGs at the table I could beat consistantly no matter where they were. I always did better at 20/10 tables than 50/15 tables, much much better. I am not sure I understand why it is that I am able to beat the TAGs but not the LAGs at this level. In the 1/2 level I can seem to beat any type of player consistantly regardless of their position.

What would it take to figure out what it is that I am doing wrong at these levels? What stats could I post or examine that may lead me to some answers? I really want to get to the route of my issues so that when I am fully ready I can move up a level with confidence. I think it is good that I conducted this experiment, now, on a temporary basis to give me a feel of what my real skill level is. Its quite frustrating, but I know it is part of the process. A very necessary step in the process. Again I apologize if I rambled on, my ADD is acting up again. [img]/images/graemlins/laugh.gif[/img]

[kapw7]

If you can't beat LAGs there is no way you can beat TAGs. 1/2 "TAGs" are usually weak and predictable but at 3/6 they become much better. I guess 3/6 is the entry level for pros as well.

Have a look at this link and also the original link that Naphand gives.

Good luck.

Seriously, at 3/6 I was beating TAG's handily, but getting destroyed by LAGs. Im not really sure what this means.

[EvanJC]

it doesnt mean anything. your sample size is way too small to be meaningful