6-max v full ring

[EasyPoker]

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?

[OhioRounder]

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.

[spoonitnow]

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.

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).

[OhioRounder]

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.

[spoonitnow]

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 lease 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?