Full ring vs 6max

[seven-deuce]

In the AMA renton thread he said;

"I refuse to play six max at 1/2 and below due to rake."

Does anyone here know the rake structure for 6max micros on stars and FR micros on stars and do they differ from 2nl and 10nl for example?

I'v always wondered about FR iv played hardly any ~100 hands slightly more or less FR on stars. It seemed weird with so many players at the table and i know opening ranges are tighter than 6max. I feel super comfortable at a 6max table i know my opening ranges from all positions and can adjust them tighter or looser depending on the table.

Back to the rake, am i sacrificing EV playing 6max if the rake is too high when i could potentially be making more at due to less rake at FR?

Anyone transitioned from 6max to FR before and does it take much adjusting or do you adjust fairly quickly? How do the games play? Are their generally more fish at FR than 6max? I feel that i'm potentially missing out on some value, am i?

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think that rake is a constant structure, x% of the pot up to $y.

I'm guessing that in 6-max, the fact that you're playing more hands makes the rake hit your BR harder.

Also, playing at the micro / low stakes means that the $y is never reached, so the same rake % is coming out of every pot. Whereas at higher stakes, the $y in rake can be taken out of the smaller pots, leaving unraked monies in the big pots.

EDIT:
Full ring plays slower, so you'll probably want to open more tables to keep up the pace and avoid boredom.

Whether there are more or less fish at FR or 6-max depends on the site and the trend at the time. It's gone back and forth over the past few years.

The 3 extra seats on a FR table are after the BB. The range you play for 6-max UTG is your MP2 (or whatever you call the seat before the HJ) range in FR. So the 3 extra seats are tighter ranges than anything you'll be comfortable with at first. (Folding KQs and AQo UTG is still a little hard for me, but when I don't, I'm in tough spots.)

As I pointed out to Cobra recently, there are some epic odds being offered to the SB in limped pots, so really figuring out how to take advantage is a fun project.

[rong]

Someone who's opinion I value told me that if you have an edge then 6m is better for you as opponents are forced to play more hands and therefore will make more mistakes for you to exploit. But he is a ridiculously good pro who makes a fortune from poker, so perhaps nobody in the micros will have such an edge.

[rong]

I think that rake is a constant structure, x% of the pot up to $y.

I'm guessing that in 6-max, the fact that you're playing more hands makes the rake hit your BR harder.

Also, playing at the micro / low stakes means that the $y is never reached, so the same rake % is coming out of every pot. Whereas at higher stakes, the $y in rake can be taken out of the smaller pots, leaving unraked monies in the big pots.

It's because you get 6 hands per 1.5bb as opposed to 9 hands.

[seven-deuce]

Yeah i was thinking if their is a fish at a 6max table it's alot more likely your gonna get in a HU pot vs him and profit from his mistakes.

[rong]

I guess bum hunting would be more profitable at smaller tables.

[supa]

I think it's because you're getting involved in so many more hands. Probably some one here can show the math.

The blinds do come around more often which makes it a more aggressive game which I like. I can play fewer tables and still have fun.

The hardest part is how much variance is involved. You're dealing with a ton more barely +ev situations because you have to get the most value out of every hand. I'm also a lagtard which doesn't help the situation much.

[seven-deuce]

The hardest part is how much variance is involved.

True, there's days when my BR goes down ~5 buy ins then at the end of the session your breakeven or even up a buy in or two. The worst is when you just start a session and insta drop 2 buyins or so, the thing that tilts me the most.

[The Bean Counter]

I've played 109k tracked hands @10nl full ring on Stars and 121k @6-max 10nl on Stars. Rake rates for me are:

FR: 5.6bb/100
6m: 7.2bb/100

but I play around 30% more hands at 6-max so hardly surprising. I expect the rake is more of an issue for people that play for a living and at levels where their edge is smaller, as a couple of bb/100 multi-tabling at 100nl+ can make a big difference.

Imo, it's much easier to transfer from 6m to FR than the other way around as there are many more marginal situations at 6max and the game is much more aggro. I enjoy 6max more for this reason but I also play it now because I'll improve far quicker playing shorthanded and there are sufficient amounts of fish at both FR and 6m. The variance at 6m can be a bitch however and require greater resilience and bankroll to handle, so ultimately I'd recommend the format that suits your personality the most.

[xptboy]

I prefer 6-max and find it more fun, I want to learn 6max more than FR because I don't see myself playing FR in the future very often, if anything I may transition into or simply learn HU &/or PLO which is much looser so I think 6max is better starting point.

Could care less about rake for the above reasons and will stick to 6max.

[seven-deuce]

Yeah i thought it was worthwhile asking incase their was a signigicant difference in the rake paid. I also prefer 6max because your edge is worth more as villains are forced to play against you and it's more aggressive with wider ranges.

[MadMojoMonkey]

... can't think of one good reason to "not care" about rake ...

Rake is taking bb's out of every pot... meaning that your winrate must be significant just to "break even". The higher the rake, the more it cuts your winnings.

If you play a pot for 100 bb, and the rake is 5%, then you just lost 5 bb to the house. Losing 5 bb an hour (assuming you are involved in 1 big pot an hour) is a HUGE hit to your winrate. EVEN IF you're crushing your stakes for 20bb/100, that's going to be at least a 10% hit to your winrate, probably closer to 25%.

NOW... once you've decided that a given rake structure is acceptable, then there's no reason to dwell on it. But NOT CARING is out of the question... to me, at least.

[xptboy]

... can't think of one good reason to "not care" about rake ...

Rake is taking bb's out of every pot... meaning that your winrate must be significant just to "break even". The higher the rake, the more it cuts your winnings.

If you play a pot for 100 bb, and the rake is 5%, then you just lost 5 bb to the house. Losing 5 bb an hour (assuming you are involved in 1 big pot an hour) is a HUGE hit to your winrate. EVEN IF you're crushing your stakes for 20bb/100, that's going to be at least a 10% hit to your winrate, probably closer to 25%.

NOW... once you've decided that a given rake structure is acceptable, then there's no reason to dwell on it. But NOT CARING is out of the question... to me, at least.

To you it is out of the question. But this isn't a broad general statement you can make for everyone, it's simply an opinion.

But as I said, I'm not playing poker to make money, I'm playing simply to have fun and be the best player that I can become. 5bb/100 rake? cool with me!