6-handed or 9-handed

When I first started playing online, I got into alot of 9-handed freerolls and lost alot of hands on the river. Now that I've found 6-handed games there's fewer people hoping to catch on the river. Is that because its tougher or better quality of player?

I would say on average 6max play is harder than 9man play. But, it doesn't have anything to do with "fewer people hoping to catch on the river". It has to do with the wider ranges of hands that individuals are playing.

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

I would say on average 6max play is harder than 9man play. But, it doesn't have anything to do with "fewer people hoping to catch on the river". It has to do with the wider ranges of hands that individuals are playing.

I have to agree with Stacks here. However, keep in mind the more variables entered into a scenerio. The more the outcome will change. You have 1.5 times more people at a 9 handed table. The starting hand requirements and certainly going to open up.

I was originally trained at the short handed table. I find myself using the same starting hand requirements when sitting at a full table. This ends up showing a leak in my game, as I am playing to tight. I would say you need to evaluate which game is more profitable for you and stick with that one.

Xxxxx

Originally Posted by Olddog21

When I first started playing online, I got into alot of 9-handed freerolls and lost alot of hands on the river. Now that I've found 6-handed games there's fewer people hoping to catch on the river. Is that because its tougher or better quality of player?

6-handed is more about isolating bad players and exploiting hand ranges. There may indeed be an overall better player pool at 6-max (unsure if this is even true) .. but even your average decent tagg is still a fish, at least at 25NL and below (I've never played higher than 25NL). A decent player at 9-handed games imo is usually more nitty and harder to exploit.

Originally Posted by OneEyeLefty

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

I would say on average 6max play is harder than 9man play. But, it doesn't have anything to do with "fewer people hoping to catch on the river". It has to do with the wider ranges of hands that individuals are playing.

I have to agree with Stacks here. However, keep in mind the more variables entered into a scenerio. The more the outcome will change. You have 1.5 times more people at a 9 handed table. The starting hand requirements and certainly going to open up.

I was originally trained at the short handed table. I find myself using the same starting hand requirements when sitting at a full table. This ends up showing a leak in my game, as I am playing to tight. I would say you need to evaluate which game is more profitable for you and stick with that one.

Xxxxx

I think you have it backwards.. The standards are that at a FR table (9-man) you usually play tighter than at a 6max table. This is what I was getting at by looser ranges. At a 6m table you have less people to play against, and therefore the starting hand "requirements" drop. So you should be playing a wider range of hands at 6m than you are FR.

My starting hand requirements are much tighter and we indeed try to isolate certain players. I play the short handed table much tighter. Flop seen % is below 15. Where in the full table game I am at 17%. I average 2.4 players to the flop in the short and 3.3 in the full game (includes both 9/10 player). This is in a sample of 350,000 hands.

Xxxxx

Originally Posted by OneEyeLefty

My starting hand requirements are much tighter and we indeed try to isolate certain players. I play the short handed table much tighter. Flop seen % is below 15. Where in the full table game I am at 17%. I average 2.4 players to the flop in the short and 3.3 in the full game (includes both 9/10 player). This is in a sample of 350,000 hands.

Xxxxx

Can you please explain to me why you believe it's logical to play looser at a FR (9man) table than at a 6max table?

Originally Posted by OneEyeLefty

My starting hand requirements are much tighter and we indeed try to isolate certain players. I play the short handed table much tighter. Flop seen % is below 15. Where in the full table game I am at 17%. I average 2.4 players to the flop in the short and 3.3 in the full game (includes both 9/10 player). This is in a sample of 350,000 hands.

Xxxxx

lol omg thats the wackiest thing ive ever heard hahah!

i hope hes joking!

I currently play 6 handed very well but just wondering the same thing as well which one is more profitable to grind out?

6 handed u play 4-6 tables
9 handed u play about 9-12 tables

Originally Posted by XxStacksxX

Originally Posted by OneEyeLefty

My starting hand requirements are much tighter and we indeed try to isolate certain players. I play the short handed table much tighter. Flop seen % is below 15. Where in the full table game I am at 17%. I average 2.4 players to the flop in the short and 3.3 in the full game (includes both 9/10 player). This is in a sample of 350,000 hands.

Xxxxx

Can you please explain to me why you believe it's logical to play looser at a FR (9man) table than at a 6max table?

What I think is he meant looser on hands that plays well in multiway pot, i.e. 99-, Axs, and SCs. I'd limp always with such hands in FR unless people are PFRing like crazy. I would definitely be tighter on ranked based hands in FR tho, i.e. not raise with QKo UTG or call a raise late pos. with AJo.
I wonder if someone has stats on their bb/100 over a good sample on both 6max and FR at the same stake?

Let's go back to the original post. My experience has shown me that the ranges are far wider at FR vs SH. My opponents ranges are far wider on a full table. I account this to be because there are 1.5 times the players and the lack of knowledge within said players. The stats I have posted above are exact and I am working on 500K hands. I wouldn't expect them to change much.

Xxxxx

Originally Posted by OneEyeLefty

Let's go back to the original post. My experience has shown me that the ranges are far wider at FR vs SH. My opponents ranges are far wider on a full table. I account this to be because there are 1.5 times the players and the lack of knowledge within said players. The stats I have posted above are exact and I am working on 500K hands. I wouldn't expect them to change much.

Xxxxx

And my previous question remains: How does this make any sense to you? At a HU table, you would expect to play more hands than at a 6max table. At a 6m table, you would be expected to play more hands than at a FR table. So why are you saying that it is correct to have a wider range at FR than at 6max?

And since my other topic got locked but I didn't really get my question answered here just yet, does anyone have a logic playing one over the other for PROFITABILITY reasons?

Perhaps some stats of someone playing both (at the same stake) and bb/100 for both?

Put simply. the more players. the tighter your ranges.

Originally Posted by OneEyeLefty

My starting hand requirements are much tighter and we indeed try to isolate certain players. I play the short handed table much tighter. Flop seen % is below 15. Where in the full table game I am at 17%. I average 2.4 players to the flop in the short and 3.3 in the full game (includes both 9/10 player). This is in a sample of 350,000 hands.

Xxxxx

2.4 players to the flop at 6 handed table is 40%

3.3 players to the flop at 9 handed table is 37% (rounded)

Therefore the average player at the 6 handed table is seeing more flops than at the 9 handed table. Which I think is the opposite of what you were trying to prove with your numbers.

Originally Posted by nickthefool

Originally Posted by OneEyeLefty

My starting hand requirements are much tighter and we indeed try to isolate certain players. I play the short handed table much tighter. Flop seen % is below 15. Where in the full table game I am at 17%. I average 2.4 players to the flop in the short and 3.3 in the full game (includes both 9/10 player). This is in a sample of 350,000 hands.

Xxxxx

2.4 players to the flop at 6 handed table is 40%

3.3 players to the flop at 9 handed table is 37% (rounded)

Therefore the average player at the 6 handed table is seeing more flops than at the 9 handed table. Which I think is the opposite of what you were trying to prove with your numbers.

I was just posting the numbers. I wasn't trying to prove anything. Just posting them for the purpose of discussing.

Xxxxx

Originally Posted by OneEyeLefty

Originally Posted by nickthefool

Originally Posted by OneEyeLefty

My starting hand requirements are much tighter and we indeed try to isolate certain players. I play the short handed table much tighter. Flop seen % is below 15. Where in the full table game I am at 17%. I average 2.4 players to the flop in the short and 3.3 in the full game (includes both 9/10 player). This is in a sample of 350,000 hands.

Xxxxx

2.4 players to the flop at 6 handed table is 40%

3.3 players to the flop at 9 handed table is 37% (rounded)

Therefore the average player at the 6 handed table is seeing more flops than at the 9 handed table. Which I think is the opposite of what you were trying to prove with your numbers.

I was just posting the numbers. I wasn't trying to prove anything. Just posting them for the purpose of discussing.

Xxxxx

And we are trying to discuss.. And we say that you should be tighter at a FR table, and looser on a 6m table. You disagree. Why? Prove to us we are wrong.

Either you don't have a large enough sample to show whether you're tighter or not at full ring vs 6-max or you're doin' it wrong.

How many hands at 6-max? If you've only played a couple hundred then sure, you may have been tighter than your full ring sample. If you've been playing over a few thousand hands though your VPIP/PFR stats will be fairly accurate. Perhaps you should post your opening ranges for 6-max and full ring and we can see where you're missing value.

Btw if you're that guy in my database who runs 4/4 at 6-max, I love you.

Originally Posted by Micro2Macro

Btw if you're that guy in my database who runs 4/4 at 6-max, I love you.

lol. this