Is 6-max really an ATM machine?

I've been grinding out the micro-limit games, starting with .50/1, and doing well enough to be moving from 1/2 up to 2/4 soon.....and all of my success has been at full ring games (Party and Multi).

I assume I'm most comfortable at these larger tables because all of the books I've studied so hard usually focus on a 10-handed game. But I hear more and more about 6-max and how, if played correctly, can be far more profitable.

So my question to all you 6-max advocates is, am I being silly to ignore these tables? Now that I've had continued success at $1/$2 full ring, would I likely benefit from sliding over to 6-max? Please post any random opinions on the topic. Thanks

[bottomset]

1/2 6max is a goldmine

[car ramrod]

You must play 1/2 6max before playing 2/4.

and yes I agree with bottomset, it is a goldmine.

[milesdyson]

all the retards go to 6max tables for the action, excitement, and the comraderie. follow them.

[NateDog]

[ QUOTE ]
all the retards go to 6max tables for the action, excitement, and the comraderie. follow them.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if I'm in the former group or the latter.

6M is as addictive as crack though.

Natedog = Junkie

[DCWildcat]

i love the camraderie, personally.

70/30/5? fun times. hop on and win cash$

I don't think it's as simple as 6-max is more (or less) profitable than 10-max. The more relevant question is, what's your playing style?

If you crave action - then 6-max. If you like predictable (for poker) winning - then 10-max.

6-max is faster and more volitile than 10-max. Plus it requires different skills. Don't assume your winning tactics at 10-max will work.

So, bottom line, if you're looking for a change then go for it. But it sounds like you've got a good thing going at 10-max, why try and master a new style if you are already profitable?

[DCWildcat]

I going to disagree with the last poster. The players are exponentially worse, and you see far more hands. This renders almost everything else irrelevant. It is more profitable--to the tune of 1 or 2 more BB/100--if you know what you're doing. But it does take some time to learn the skills.

[ QUOTE ]
I going to disagree with the last poster. The players are exponentially worse, and you see far more hands. This renders almost everything else irrelevant. It is more profitable--to the tune of 1 or 2 more BB/100--if you know what you're doing. But it does take some time to learn the skills.

[/ QUOTE ]


Adapting to those new skills is the rub. If it takes you a few thousand hands to get the knack of 6-max, then I'm not so sure I agree you wind up ahead. Especially if you consider the opponturnity cost of what you typically win over the same span of hands at 10-max.

Which brings me back to the fundamental point - if your natural style is the opposite of LA, then you might want to think hard before making the switch.

[ QUOTE ]
But it sounds like you've got a good thing going at 10-max, why try and master a new style if you are already profitable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Deception5 explains why 6-max is good for one's overall game

[ QUOTE ]
If you crave action - then 6-max. If you like predictable (for poker) winning - then 10-max. 6-max is faster and more volitile than 10-max.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree; or at least, not entirely. 6-max is busier than full ring, to be sure, but it doesn't mean that you go in there "craving action". You don't need to juice up your aggression stats by a point or two to succeed there, and if you're trying to, you're probably spewing. I've played a fair amount of each and my standard deviations for the two games aren't substantially different. If someone finds themselves losing more/less at 6-max, it's at least partially because he/she is just playing more hands.