Is There Really a Huge Difference Between 6max and FR?

I'm under the impression that 6max merely necessitates a looser, more aggressive style of play due to the more blinds you pay and the fact that you can get away with it due to having fewer people likely beat your hand.

Reads also seem much more important because the extra looseness and aggression means players will more often butt heads with marginal holdings. I guess that's also why there's more variance with 6max.

But my curiosity goes a little deeper than that. There are mid-stakes forums here on FTR for both shorthanded and full-ring games. Is the difference between the two kind of like the difference between tournament and cash, or even LHE and NLHE? That is, should I decide early which one I want to most improve at and just go with one?

It seems like there's no way I could hope to 20-table 6max as I move up like I've been doing with FR. Should I just stick with FR, then?

There is definitely a difference, the points you outlined are the main ones - I think folks can be good at both, but as you move up the levels and really grow I'm thinking you excel at one more than the other. You could still mix it up from time to time, but if one's more profitable you'll probably focus on it all the more.
The forums being split like that make sense just as splitting them by stakes make sense.

6max is more of an action packed poker and full ring is more civilized.

there is less emphasis/importance placed on bluffing in full ring, and with that, less success (bluffing)

way less variance with full ring

players are generally worse in full ring, simply because everybody plays 6max

you will need full ring competence if you want to go to a casino, where its really hard to find a 6max table, other than shorthanded high stakes.

reads are important in full ring too, not just 6max

sometimes its harder to find a full ring table (ie at 3-4 am like right now lol), its really easy to find a 6max table 24/7

full ring is more of a hill/grind and 6max is like a rollercoaster

full ring is "cheaper" in that every hand you play in full ring is about .16 big blinds, 6max every hand costs you a quarter of a big blind.

however, the less players you face, the more creative you can be with your play. heads up you can really exploit a worse player. 6max its a little harder because you need manuever around the other 4 players. full ring its harder to exploit a bad player because there are 7 other people, this is assuming the other 7 are good tags, which is usually not the case, usually when you have reads and have been playing a table for a while you can exploit every player at the table.


i was a 6max player but im starting to move toward full ring just because its much easier imo



renton has a sick thread about 6m vs fr here:
http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ng-t61621.html

Nothing changes, but ranges.

6max is looser, has wider ranges, has a lot more HU pots, and is higher variance.

FR is considered "nit-ring" by many, has tighter ranges esp from EP, has a good amount of multiway pots, and is lowest variance

Originally Posted by XTR1000

Nothing changes, but ranges.

I would say general strategies change. Full ring has a lot of limp-and-hit-big fish while 6m has a lot of I-bluff-you fish.

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by XTR1000

Nothing changes, but ranges.

I would say general strategies change. Full ring has a lot of limp-and-hit-big fish while 6m has a lot of I-bluff-you fish.

So limp-calling ranges get wider in FR while bet-when-checked-to ranges widen in 6m u say?

its still poker?

just play your position and adjust as necessary to changing conditions.

Originally Posted by XTR1000

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by XTR1000

Nothing changes, but ranges.

I would say general strategies change. Full ring has a lot of limp-and-hit-big fish while 6m has a lot of I-bluff-you fish.

So limp-calling ranges get wider in FR while bet-when-checked-to ranges widen in 6m u say?

It's not ranges, it's frequencies.
For example, you'll get bluff raised on the flop more often in 6m. It doesn't matter what the villain holds, so he doesn't have a "bluff raising range" other than "all hands that have little value" which admittedly becomes wider. But it's the fact that villain 3bs 14% on the button in 6m while in FR it's like 5%.

Remember that in poker the best strategy is often bluffing the correct percentage of the time, not "with the correct hands"
you're not going to get suited aces every hand, so when it's a good time, 3b bluff hands that may not be at the top of your bluffing range

you can't say "well in FR almost nobody 3b bluffs with Axo, but in 6m the 3b bluffing range is wider so it's Axo and suited gappers as well as Axs"
it's more like "when people get Axo OTB in FR they choose to 3b bluff with them 10%, but in 6m they choose to bluff with them 30% of the time"
tl;dr version: it's the bluffing frequency not the range with which people bluff

they complement each other, but different.

position, aggression, 3-betting, blind play, ranges, etc vary between games. Master both.

If you're 4th to act preflop in FR and the first 3 positions fold, is there still a difference between playing your hand and playing it UTG in 6max?

Came in to respond with basically word word what XTR put. If IOPQ wants to talk about frequencies then, well, yeah, but imo frequencies deals with ranges. You bluff raise more because in 6max you deal with wider ranges.

Originally Posted by kmind

Came in to respond with basically word word what XTR put. If IOPQ wants to talk about frequencies then, well, yeah, but imo frequencies deals with ranges. You bluff raise more because in 6max you deal with wider ranges.

this is not true, I bluff 3b the same range in FR and 6m. I just choose to fold more often in FR.

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by kmind

Came in to respond with basically word word what XTR put. If IOPQ wants to talk about frequencies then, well, yeah, but imo frequencies deals with ranges. You bluff raise more because in 6max you deal with wider ranges.

this is not true, I bluff 3b the same range in FR and 6m. I just choose to fold more often in FR.

So you're 3bet range is identical, but your "calls 4bet" and "5bet" ranges are narrower?

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by kmind

Came in to respond with basically word word what XTR put. If IOPQ wants to talk about frequencies then, well, yeah, but imo frequencies deals with ranges. You bluff raise more because in 6max you deal with wider ranges.

this is not true, I bluff 3b the same range in FR and 6m. I just choose to fold more often in FR.

I don't understand a word you are saying. Sure WE have a range we 3bet/bluff with, which I have identical I guess (depends on villain) in both FR and 6max but THEY have different ranges meaning, in 6max, they'll usually have more hands they'll fold with (wider range).

Am I missing what you are trying to say?

Originally Posted by kmind

Originally Posted by iopq

Originally Posted by kmind

Came in to respond with basically word word what XTR put. If IOPQ wants to talk about frequencies then, well, yeah, but imo frequencies deals with ranges. You bluff raise more because in 6max you deal with wider ranges.

this is not true, I bluff 3b the same range in FR and 6m. I just choose to fold more often in FR.

I don't understand a word you are saying. Sure WE have a range we 3bet/bluff with, which I have identical I guess (depends on villain) in both FR and 6max but THEY have different ranges meaning, in 6max, they'll usually have more hands they'll fold with (wider range).

Am I missing what you are trying to say?

Exactly, which is why I 3b more in 6m. So say I will 3b the following hands:

22-66
Axs
Axo

22-66 because I don't have the odds to setmine so against aggressive BU or CO raiser I'll prefer to 3b
they don't have blockers, but they're good hands to 5b bluff with

that is true in both 6m and FR
but in FR I will more often:
face a raise from EP
face a raise from a nit (that has a really tight opening range)
have an opportunity to just call profitably

my range doesn't change, it's just that instead of say bluffing 50% of the time I get those hands in 6m I will only get to do that 15% in FR
What I'm trying to say is that when we have A4s we're not doing the same thing every time. In fact, a balanced strategy relies on the fact that we're sometimes folding our bluffs, otherwise we're spewing.

Originally Posted by amir is cool

renton has a sick thread about 6m vs fr here:
http://www.flopturnriver.com/phpBB2/...ng-t61621.html

This thread got me checking out FR, and I eventually pretty much followed Renton's advice and played FR exclusively for four months. I'm playing 6max again now, but I agree with Daven that we should learn to beat both even if we're more "expert" on one.

@IOPQ - you have this epic ability to derail threads with trivialities.

Originally Posted by iopq

my range doesn't change, it's just that instead of say bluffing 50% of the time I get those hands in 6m I will only get to do that 15% in FR

Changing frequencies does ultimately result in a change of ranges. Your range is not only defined by what actual hands are a subset of it, but as well by the share each subset has in that range.

If you think of your 6m 3balling range as {50% value, 50% bluff} and the one in FR as {85% value, 15% bluff} it becomes clear, no?

Cost per hand must be seen in relation to average pot size. Each hand is more costly in 6 max, but if average pot size is also bigger we cant make an argument for loosening up on the basis of cost/hand.

Many good players overdo their general adjustment to 6-max (too loose, too aggressive) and thus we gain lots of Equity advantage on them by playing tighter.

Only real difference is that we have no "early position" in 6-max.

My point is that the differences between FR and 6-max is far less important than the players at your table. Sometimes we get away with frenzy betting and other times we need to gain Equity advantage.

Loosening up just because its 6-max seems like poor reasoning.

Originally Posted by XTR1000

Originally Posted by iopq

my range doesn't change, it's just that instead of say bluffing 50% of the time I get those hands in 6m I will only get to do that 15% in FR

Changing frequencies does ultimately result in a change of ranges. Your range is not only defined by what actual hands are a subset of it, but as well by the share each subset has in that range.

If you think of your 6m 3balling range as {50% value, 50% bluff} and the one in FR as {85% value, 15% bluff} it becomes clear, no?

Exactly. And exactly my point.

IOPQ - when you say "face a raise from EP" that's just another way to say his range is tighter. When you say "face a raise from a nit" that just means his range is tighter again. And when you say you can just call profitably not sure what you mean but you should call more or less depending on their ranges. So, basically, everything revolves around ranges, no? If people had as tight of ranges in 6max as they did in FR (which sometimes is the case) then we just adjust. That adjustment would be similar to more cases that happen in FR when the situation arises a lot more.

The essential difference is that 6max has fewer seats at the table. I know you think I'm being a wiseass, but that's all there is. Fewer seats at the table makes for three key strategic implications:

1. The BTN comes around faster.
2. Position changes faster.
3. There are fewer starting combos dealt each hand.

I know you're rolling your eyes, but think about what each of these things means. Sir Pawn is right about the cost/hand, but let's face it: EVERY piece of info out there about 6max talks about the blinds "coming around faster" and how that means you have play more hands. Thus, the game appeals to the action-hounds who happily just play 10% more hands from every position. But the fact the blinds come around faster is almost irrelevant. Everyone is equally disadvantaged by the blinds.

The key to beating 6max is to maximally profit from the BTN and CO coming around faster.

That's the point of #2 that most people miss. The person who wins most at 6max is the one who can play each position at the table differently, adjusting more to opponents/position. Most 6m regs only understand position in terms of "stealing more" from the BTN and (sometimes) the CO/SB. There's more to the power of position than blind steals, and we can profit from understanding position and using it better (even EP!! / oop) than our opponents do.

Most 6m regs seem to misinterpret #3 as meaning "fewer great hands are out against you," and therefore they just "open up" from all positions and play more hands. They weaken their range. But the reason #3 is vital is because we end up in HU pots much more routinely in 6m than in FR. So when our opponents just play more loosely, but fail to adjust to the essential nature of the game, they give us real opportunities to make precision reads on their game and play a "optimal exploiting game" against them.

In FR, you manage to isolate less, and you can't play exploitative lines against single opponents as often. With fewer seats at 6m, you get a chance to play HU nearly every time you see a flop. So reads and non-standard exploitative lines become extremely valuable.

And that relates to #2: we can more easily play exploitative lines when in position. And our ability to specifically adjust to various opponents from different positions and PLAY VERY DIFFERENTLY AGAINST EACH ONE stems from the fact that there are fewer seats at the table.

Makes me want to play 6max more. Except for the fact that I'mma HOOOODGE loser at 6max.

Main difference for me is:
FR = profitzzz
6m = they take my moniezzz