Printable View
I was reading on 2+2 the other day an old archive where this debate took place.
They seemed to say that 6 max isn't the best choice due to variance. With that said, I find 6-max way more profitable and my success only started to decline when I started playing full ring again.
What do ppl here think?
6m can be more profitable if you can find and iso the fish. Full ring is more about waiting for cards, nut camping, and targeting the weak-tights. Both games are profitable in their own way. If you're a laggy player with a big bankroll and decent at hand reading, by all means play short-handed. If you're a nitty set farmer that likes to wait for hands, then full ring would be better. There's way more scenarios to be talked about, but in general this is it.
I highlighted everything in this response that is correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRounder
The only difference between a 9-handed game and a 6-handed game is learning how to play the three early position seats (and how to play against them).
I was making a vague generalization. Still, you're saying over 100k hands, a 6/4 FR nit at NL100 will be equally profitable at 6max. Not trying to be a prick, but please explain this.
What do you think this player would run in a 6-handed game and why do you think his winrate would be much different?Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioRounder