Should I be playing 6-max instead of full ring?

Edited to shorten...

Been playing AOK's 19 on Stars, but it seems that strategy does best in rooms that are hard to find -- or at least, loose enough tables quickly seem to turn to rockfests at micro limits as fish bust out and are replaced by more methodical multi-tablers.

Last night I tried some 6-maxes and I think I found where the fish hide. It's beautiful, but my experience is limited to < 400 hands of 6-max.

Would anyone here argue against playing 6-max micro-limit tables? Just looking for a better hourly rate than I'm seeing in full ring, I guess...

Would it make more sense from a long-term perspective to take a more methodical approach, perfect my tight game, and then branch into looser tables?

From The way your post was worded I would assume that you are familiar with many of the basic concepts of holdem; it's possible for all but the dumbest people to understand things like pot odds.

The key for you right now is exposure, find where you are most comfortable and that will be reflected in your win-rate. Anyone who gives you an absolute answer is wrong, plain and simple. Just because 6-max works for them, doesn't mean it will work for you.

I would suggest that you continue playing 6-max to see if it suits your style of play. You may have had a good run, table, etc; however, you may have crushed a standard game in your short time there.

I personally like full ring more as it presents a greater tactical challenge for me.

My opinion -

full ring=nutcamping
shorthanded 6max=real poker

full ring and shorthanded are both real poker

Full ring is more longball and relies on a solid preflop strategy and a knowledge of the importance of implied odds.

Shorthanded is more smallball and relies on a solid postflop strategy and an ability to read hands.

I think its a bad idea for new players to start out playing shorthanded poker. Its a better idea IMO to play full ring at first and adopt a supertight aggressive strategy, and then open up your game gradually and begin playing 6 max.

Good analysis renton.

FR= tight
6max= semi tight

In FR you have to be tight and when yo0uget a hand try to isolate preflop. In 6max you just gotta get the reads that you have the others dominated, so ya reads are very important. Mix it up, play 50/50 until you figure out your game. I like 6max because it's a little faster and looser, but I win more in FR. Still trying to figure it all out. In short (too late) What Renton said.

Most people overadjust to 6-max. Its just like full ring except that the first four players to act have folded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill

Most people overadjust to 6-max. Its just like full ring except that the first four players to act have folded.

---

I disagree. In fact, playing like this can get you in trouble. In 6 max, there are less cards dealt than in FR. So while KT is mostly a fold in FR it's highly playable in 6max because it's less likely that a higher K was dealt out. Not impossible, just less likely.

If you play it like an extremely tight/passive FR table you are playing too tight and fold alot of hands that are very likely to be best. The fewer number of players at the table, the looser the starting hand requirements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thee One

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill

Most people overadjust to 6-max. Its just like full ring except that the first four players to act have folded.

---

I disagree. In fact, playing like this can get you in trouble. In 6 max, there are less cards dealt than in FR. So while KT is mostly a fold in FR it's highly playable in 6max because it's less likely that a higher K was dealt out. Not impossible, just less likely.

If you play it like an extremely tight/passive FR table you are playing too tight and fold alot of hands that are very likely to be best. The fewer number of players at the table, the looser the starting hand requirements.

---

Yes, very true. For example, if you have AQ in full (10 person) ring, there is a 16.3% chance that you are dominated pf by AA, KK, AK or QQ. In 6 max, that goes down to 9%. That doesn't mean you can't win the hand even if you are dominated pf, but just statistically illustrates the point that your starting hand requirements should change with respect to the number of players at the table.

lol

Just to give a bit more details...

My "training wheel full ring game" has been play the 19 hands, and c-bet if I bet preflop or bet if it hits. Bets = 1/2 pot consistently, and I'll fold to a big show of aggression unless I've got the near-nuts. Failing to heed that last part is painful with overpairs or TPTK -- my biggest leak.

Micro limit ring games quickly include a number of folks with < 18% VP$iP who also know how to show some aggression. The good news is that I've got most of these folks figured out, and know when a bet can push them off a hand, and know when most of them will pay off a set with AA or KK. The bad news is that this is a slow process.

Moving to micro limit ring, PT adds a cute little fishy icon to most players. There are a bunch of players with VP$iP > 90% who also like to be really aggressive :lol: :lol: :lol: and average VP$iP is probably something like 50%-60% and passive both pre- and post-flop.

I've been loosening up a little -- maybe 22-24% VP$iP, but that's OK because no-one notices. I've been playing more speculative junk from position (suited connectors, gappers, and aces) and when they pay off they pay off big. I've only been playing one table at a time so I can keep my observations up, but it's still more proftitable. Way more -- like 10x more.

Now, this is a bit risky. Sometimes I'm stupid and value bet J7s and its TP and find myself up against TPTK, but other times it'll be donk #1 pushing his Q3 against my AQ on a QQxxx board, or donk #2 pushing all-in on the river with TP-no kicker the fourth time in an hour, and this time I've got 2 pair to his one. In either case the donk could have gotten lucky and hit a bigger hand than required to bet this way, but even my reads (~ 7,500 hands of 19-hand experience) seem pretty accurate here.

It's just fishier. I guess those that like to gamble find 6-max more their style, and those who are looking to play TAGG and slowly build their bankrolls are sticking to full ring, so there's a solid opportunity here.

Or at least, that's how it looks after 500 hands at 6-max (way small sample size, I know...)

I think when you are playing hands like J7s You espescially have to remember why you are getting in pre-flop for in the first place. You are not playing hands like that for TPTK. This is maybe one of the problems you may be having when expanding yur opening requirements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thee One

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill

Most people overadjust to 6-max. Its just like full ring except that the first four players to act have folded.

---

I disagree. In fact, playing like this can get you in trouble. In 6 max, there are less cards dealt than in FR. So while KT is mostly a fold in FR it's highly playable in 6max because it's less likely that a higher K was dealt out. Not impossible, just less likely.

If you play it like an extremely tight/passive FR table you are playing too tight and fold alot of hands that are very likely to be best. The fewer number of players at the table, the looser the starting hand requirements.

---

...Isnt that exactly [well without giving specific hands] what cocco said? If the first 4 players folded to you in FR your hand requirements would loosen up.


Anyways, I agree with what Renton said about not starting out at 6max, I think its better to build a strong fundamental base before making the switch. Im planning on making the switch to 6max when my BR hits $5k and start out at $.5/1 until I get used to it and then move up to $1/2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andy-akb

...Isnt that exactly [well without giving specific hands] what cocco said? If the first 4 players folded to you in FR your hand requirements would loosen up.

---

Your hand requirements loosen up but the odds of specific hands being present in the remaining hands to act decrease as well in 6-Max. This is due to more cards remaining in the deck. So the perception makes it *seem* like you're playing with a smaller deck in FR whereas in 6-Max it seems the deck is bigger.

You're more likely to hit a draw in 6-Max because it's less likely your card is in someone else's hand. The same is not true of a Tight-Passive FR table as those four hands take cards from the deck that would otherwise be available to draw from on the different post-flop streets.

Put it back because if I'm wrong and stupid there's a good lesson to learn from it. :-)

Thee One no offense but what you just said is obsuletly not true the odds to hit a draw are not affected if the cards are not seen there te same no matter how manys players are in the game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Happy Jones

Thee One no offense but what you just said is obsuletly not true the odds to hit a draw are not affected if the cards are not seen there te same no matter how manys players are in the game.

---

You're right in theory. Theoretically all the cards are unknown and your chances to hit your cards are the same whether the deck has 5 cards or 50.

But if you have a 13 outs would you rather draw from a deck with 5 *available* cards or 13? Yeah you're still the same % to make your hand but there is a greater chance that one of your outs is still in the deck when the deck has more cards to pick from.

Or maybe I'm all the way off.

I may be off here as well, I never like statistic, but:

If you have a box full of blue chips and red chips, same number of both, red chip wins.
Would you care if you are drawing from a box with 10 chips total or 1000 chips total?

If there are less cards, then yes there may be some cards gone that helped you, but there may also be cards gone that DIDNT help you, which incrases your chance. So since the cards are unknown, it doesnt matter how many there are.

Three one, you are way off. It doesn't matter if they're in the deck, they need to be at the top to be dealt. Whether your outs are in the middle of the deck, at the bottom of the deck or in your opponents' hands makes no difference, you're not getting them either way. The odds don't change.

I feel most people in this forum arent newbs I for one am not although im new to online.
Its a common mistake that I think alot of people make. It still cracks me up how people at the blackjack tables still consider a deck to be ruined if its not played through properly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Happy Jones

I feel most people in this forum arent newbs I for one am not although im new to online.
Its a common mistake that I think alot of people make. It still cracks me up how people at the blackjack tables still consider a deck to be ruined if its not played through properly.

---

Yeah...I ran it by a buddy of mine (math whiz). He's going to simulate a few quazillion deals on his Beowulf and let me know the results. He's not convinced that the pool of available cards doesn't affect the odds of catching a given card either.

Though we both admit we could be wrong.

To explain it a bit better if you could see your opponents cards two things would happen when your drawing:
1) Youd see your opponents cards dont match any of the cards you need and therefore the chances of you getting your draw increase.
2) You see your opponents cards and they are cards you need to hit your draw and therefore your chances decrease.

But because you cant see your cards these two cancel each other out and therefore become useless.

Sorry if that made it more confusing.

The fact is that what your opponent holds does affect your odds, but there is no way to figure what they hold. It's like happy says. Any math you come up with will figure on whether they have it in their hand and if it is not in thier hand. The poker gods don't eveen try to take this into account, they just figure odds on the cards not in their hand. Basically if the table is 9 handed that's 2 cards in your hand, 3 on the flop, and 47 available. Deal 20,000 hands and the odds will come up the same. For example, a four flush draw 11% of the time after the flop.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

The fact is that what your opponent holds does affect your odds, but there is no way to figure what they hold. It's like happy says. Any math you come up with will figure on whether they have it in their hand and if it is not in thier hand. The poker gods don't eveen try to take this into account, they just figure odds on the cards not in their hand. Basically if the table is 9 handed that's 2 cards in your hand, 3 on the flop, and 47 available. Deal 20,000 hands and the odds will come up the same. For example, a four flush draw 11% of the time after the flop.

---

Yeah, you're right. He ran through 10 million hands. The results:

7.8% chance of being dealt any one 6 (we used 6's for the variable) in the deck with 40 cards left

8.5% chance of being dealt any one 6 in the deck with 32 cards left.

So practically speaking, no difference. You are 8% to hit any one out of 4 random cards regardless of cards dealt or not dealt.

I find that the real value of 6Max is that when you find a player you can exploit, outplay, dominate, own, etc... you get more opportunities to do so than in FR. There's also a higher chance to tilt your opponents when you're constantly playing hands with them. Obviously the catch 22 is that this can happen to you as well when your opponent keeps finding big hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Renton

full ring and shorthanded are both real poker

Full ring is more longball and relies on a solid preflop strategy and a knowledge of the importance of implied odds.

Shorthanded is more smallball and relies on a solid postflop strategy and an ability to read hands.

I think its a bad idea for new players to start out playing shorthanded poker. Its a better idea IMO to play full ring at first and adopt a supertight aggressive strategy, and then open up your game gradually and begin playing 6 max.

---

This is spot on. I am in total agreement with starting out in full ring and then switching over to 6max (maybe around 100nl or 200nl). "Nut camping" in full ring is where you learn basic strategy and starting hand selections, as well as position. Not that you can't learn it in 6max, but it is best to learn an ABC textbook way of playing when starting out (imo), and there is a lot of non-ABC stuff that goes on in 6max.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cocco_Bill

Most people overadjust to 6-max. Its just like full ring except that the first four players to act have folded.

---

In theory, you should play 6-max the same as full ring with the first 4 folded. However in real life there is a critical diffrence...

Mindset...

In 6-Max most of the players know that they should be opening up and playing looser... They are more likely to make a play... They know that they need to see more hands... The are more likely to reraise..

Ask yourself this...

If you sit at a NL table with .50/1.00 blinds and get AA in the CO... you raise $4.. and the BB calls...

Flop is J :heart: 7 :heart: 2:club:

He checks, you bet $7 pot, He raises another $40

Are you telling me that you wouldnt give a the BB more credit if it's in a full ring than you would in 6-Max?

I know I would.

<quote>In theory, you should play 6-max the same as full ring with the first 4 folded. However in real life there is a critical diffrence... <quote>

Not exactly theres actually a higher chance your remaining opponents have better hands than in a regular 6 max game.