full ring vs. 6-max

[deception5]

My thoughts on the subject.

[jrz1972]

I've been playing 6max for about the last 6 months at the .5/1 and 1/2 levels. I'm seriously considering moving back to full ring. Part of that is frustration stemming from a ~300bb downswing over my last 6800 hands, but this is something I've been thinking about for a while.

First of all, there's no doubt in my mind that I'm a winning player in these sorts of microlimit short-handed games. A very solid chunk of opponents at these levels are retarded. Moving back to full ring is not out of concern for my winrate, which is still solid.

Also, it's not that 6max isn't fun. It's definitely more interesting that full ring since you find yourself in many more marginal situations and since you face a greater level of aggression and trickiness from your opponents.

The main reason why I'm thinking about switching back is because when I'm honest with myself, I know my style of play is better suited to full ring than shorthanded:

1. I tend to play ABC poker on autopilot. PAHUD is not enough to get serious reads on players, and you need those sorts of reads to really do well at short-handed play. If I play only one or tables I can get good post-flop reads, but I also get bored very quickly. Basically, I've discovered I have a preference for playing a large number of mechanical hands as opposed to a small number of finely-tuned hands.

2. I have no desire to move up. Ever. There is no doubt that if you want to move to higher levels you need to be able to get good reads and get used to "playing the player." I would never dispute that attentive play is superior to auto-pilot play. But auto-pilot ABC play works just fine at low levels, especially at full ring. If I don't plan to move up, I might as well stick with the game that best suits the ABC/2+2 style.

3. My style tends to be a little on the weak side. When I'm playing well, I have no problem supressing my weak-tight tendencies, but when I tilt I tend to play more weakly than usual. That's better than suffering from tilt that leads to chip-spewing over-aggression, but it's still a problem I need to work on. The thing is that I think weak play is punished much less severely in full ring than in short-handed games. So since I know I suffer from this problem from time to time, it seems to make sense to pick the game that is least impacted by it.

4. I find full ring to be much more relaxing and less stressful than short-handed. The marginal decisions that make short-handed so much fun and so interesting also lead to a fair amount of stress, at least for me. When I've played a session here and there of full ring, I'm breathtaken by how easy and relaxing it is by comparison. Part of that is that the game doesn't move as quickly, but also the abundance of multiway pots just greatly simplifies the post-flop decisions.

I'm absolutely glad I logged some time at 6max because it's unquestionably improved my play overall. I just think that for me personally, maybe full ring is a game that suits me a little better than short-handed.

I probably won't abandon short-handed play forever; it's still very nice for bonus-clearing. But whereas 95%+ of my hands since July have been short-handed, I'm inclined to adjust that to more like 60%-70% full ring from now on.

[ QUOTE ]
In Ed Miller's magazine column he suggests that anyone playing full ring games should drop down a limit and start playing the 6 max tables there . Has anyone tried this or have good stats/experience to compare these 2 kinds of games?

[/ QUOTE ]

Full ring is like cocaine and 6-max is like crack. I'm sure people have already provided some good links (you see, I'm grunching). My fear is that when I walk into a full-ring live game next week, it will be like a nice cup of coffee.

[ QUOTE ]
My thoughts on the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Deception's post above was the reason why I decided to try 6-max out. If you haven't read it and want to play 6-max - do it now!

[k000k]

To put it in a nutshell, SH games force you to play more, thus giving you more opportunity to outplay your opponents.

Deception, nice article...

[mojobluesman]

I can play two tables of full ring at close to my highest level. After that my play starts slowly deteriorating because I don't have time to think out hands carefully and put my opponent on a narrow range of holdings. I often have action on another table or two at the same time and multiple decisions to make.

You play more hands at 6-max so that multi-table decision making cramps your ability a bit even at two tables.

[deception5]

Hey, welcome back!

Thanks for the complements all [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[deception5]

I think this is a great post btw jrz. It's funny when I tilt I go the other way, back to my natural laggish tendencies. Maybe that's why I prefer 6-max. There are some definite advantages to full ring though, it is definitely a lot less stressful - I've occasionally thought of switching back as well and have cleared a few bonuses at full over the past few months for a change of pace.

[kiemo]

I am fully convinced and as evidenced by playing against miles last night, 6 max seems to be mostly an action junky almost pure luck game.

And I am the unluckiest player at it, which probably just means I suck.

After everything i've read the past few months I think, preferences aside, it boils down to this:

Six max is more profitable for good players. Some of us are not good players, and haven't yet realized it. I think the player skill continuum looks something like this:

- Awful
- Poor
- Mediocre
- Average
- Good
- Very Good
- Excellent
- BK/Schneids, etc.
- Supreme Poker Being

I think it breaks down such that Goods are winners at 1/2-2/4, VGs are winners at 3/6-5/10, Excels at 10/20-20/40, BKeids at 30/60+ (but not all levels), and SPBs at any level.

Once you reach Good, the full ring and 6max games are such that, combined with your talent, there's more profit to be had playing shorthanded.

I play full ring, b/c i'm a mediocre player.