![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
peterbirksBetfred came up with a bonus scheme thhat was too good to resist and so, for a week, it looks as if I will be playing a lot of 50c-$1 6-max.
It's enormously different from full ring, but if I had to put it in one phrase, it would be "no-one believes you". If you continuation bet at full ring, nothing less than top pair is likely to call. If you CB at 6-max, bottom pair or better will call. You will never, ever, get an overpair to fold. Usually they will push. I even stacked a guy off when he had top pair top kicker (AJ). I can't remember when that last happened at full ring.
In a way, this makes things much simpler, because you shift your attitude from "what does he think I have" to "what do I have"? In other words, it's much more a matter of betting your hand, rather than betting what your opponent thinks is your hand. Forget about "creating believable narratives". If you've got it, you play it. If you haven't got it, the default belief is that opponent will call if he has anything.
Of course, part of this might be because I am playing at lower stakes, so the skill level will be slightly less, but the rest of it is merely a function of the fact that you are posting blinds more often. You can't afford to believe opponents as much as you do in full ring, because, if you do, you will be blinded into oblivion. So, you have to play thinner values, which means that opponents also have to play thinner values.
Logically, there should be very little difference between a CO vs BB situation in 9-handed or 6-handed (there's a minor factor of the earlier folds in full ring slightly strengthening the average hand in the BB and CO, but this is much more marginal than people seem to think). But you will see far thinner-value play in 6-max than you will in full ring. And, to be honest, the skill level seems to be higher in the full ring games (although this too might be a matter of the different stake levels).
Lot of volatility, obv, although it's nice to get paid off when you have a hand (at full ring, you get used to playing whole sessions where you never get paid off at all). Once again, paradoxically, this makes tricky play and stealing less important, because you will be playing a far higher proportion of "big" pots, and that means that your decisions there becomke proportionally more significant. Solid ABC play seems to be quite good enough at the $100 BI 6-max on IPoker, whereas the ABC players at $200 BI on FR Stars just get eaten alive.
So why not play the 6-max game? Well, because a lot of people can play ABC poker. Not as many can play the tricky stuff needed at $200 BI full ring. It's kind of "a waste of a talent". That tricky stuff would become a necessary ability at the higher level 6-max games, but then you would be looking at a massive hike in volatility as well.
_________________
It's enormously different from full ring, but if I had to put it in one phrase, it would be "no-one believes you". If you continuation bet at full ring, nothing less than top pair is likely to call. If you CB at 6-max, bottom pair or better will call. You will never, ever, get an overpair to fold. Usually they will push. I even stacked a guy off when he had top pair top kicker (AJ). I can't remember when that last happened at full ring.
In a way, this makes things much simpler, because you shift your attitude from "what does he think I have" to "what do I have"? In other words, it's much more a matter of betting your hand, rather than betting what your opponent thinks is your hand. Forget about "creating believable narratives". If you've got it, you play it. If you haven't got it, the default belief is that opponent will call if he has anything.
Of course, part of this might be because I am playing at lower stakes, so the skill level will be slightly less, but the rest of it is merely a function of the fact that you are posting blinds more often. You can't afford to believe opponents as much as you do in full ring, because, if you do, you will be blinded into oblivion. So, you have to play thinner values, which means that opponents also have to play thinner values.
Logically, there should be very little difference between a CO vs BB situation in 9-handed or 6-handed (there's a minor factor of the earlier folds in full ring slightly strengthening the average hand in the BB and CO, but this is much more marginal than people seem to think). But you will see far thinner-value play in 6-max than you will in full ring. And, to be honest, the skill level seems to be higher in the full ring games (although this too might be a matter of the different stake levels).
Lot of volatility, obv, although it's nice to get paid off when you have a hand (at full ring, you get used to playing whole sessions where you never get paid off at all). Once again, paradoxically, this makes tricky play and stealing less important, because you will be playing a far higher proportion of "big" pots, and that means that your decisions there becomke proportionally more significant. Solid ABC play seems to be quite good enough at the $100 BI 6-max on IPoker, whereas the ABC players at $200 BI on FR Stars just get eaten alive.
So why not play the 6-max game? Well, because a lot of people can play ABC poker. Not as many can play the tricky stuff needed at $200 BI full ring. It's kind of "a waste of a talent". That tricky stuff would become a necessary ability at the higher level 6-max games, but then you would be looking at a massive hike in volatility as well.
_________________
6-max
Date: 2010-03-03 11:35 pm (UTC)I'm surprised you find 6-max easier than full ring especially since it's not your regular game. For some reason although I used to play 6-max limit regularly, and the fact that I'm quite happy playing 6-max PLO, I've never felt comfortable playing NL short handed.
The reference to wasting talent is interesting - maybe the fact it seems easy (or ABC) to you is actually just because you have a talent for it? The way I'd have assumed you'd think about it is 'where can I make the most money?'. I think that 6-max winrates are higher, and as expect BBD would say, the game is also more scalable. Assuming you're level headed and well-rolled the increase in volatility works in your favour, at least in theory.
Mattito.
Re: 6-max
Date: 2010-03-04 11:46 am (UTC)I'm not sure that I said that I found it "easier". Indeed, because of my natural style, I kind of find it more difficult. What I was saying, I think, was that one of the things at which I think I am good is assessing opponent's range and acting accordingly. Now, in some games (PLO is often an example), opponent's range is very narrow and this is obvious to even the village idiot. In 6-max it's rather more the opposite -- opponent's range is very wide. As opponent's range widens (to the hypothetical extreme of any two cards) then you rely more and more on the strength of your own cards. "Playing your own hand" is counter-intuitive for me. Most of what I do in full ring is play against the range of my opponent's hand (see today's post for an example of this). However, if opponents are serial disbelievers, and you are going to showdown more often, it becomes much more important to play your own hand.
I call this "ABC" poker and, yes, in a way, I do find it trivial. Clearly if I can play ABC well, and three of my five opponents are not as good at ABC, then I will win money, and probably more money, than at an equivalent level in Full Ring. Provided I am not disturbed by the necessarily increased volatility, it would make more sense to play at that level.
But playing it would be a bit like that famous quote about Brian Townsend in a ghastly "poker den" live game on TV where all that he needed to do to win would be to stay awake. Sure, he probably had a bigger EV, but it would be, as it were, "a waste of talent" and, for that reason, somewhat mind-numbing.
The reduced hand-reading requirements in PLO and, in particular, Hi-Lo PLO (or hi-lo games in general), are probably one reason why I have gone off those games.
_________