Full Ring Vs. Short Handed

[Tration101 0]

I posted a few days ago that i was attempting to build up a roll on Pokerstars. i've never really played much on that site, but have had some initial success playing the micro limits. My question is related to opinions of whether i should focus on full ring games vs. short handed play for cash games. Ideally i want to minimize the number and size of downward swings... is this easier to do playing full ring?? I have no problems playing patiently as i usually play while doing h/w and fold ALOT but still get paid off with premium hands (people don't notice me only playing J's+). Any advice would be appreciated.Edit: Well i guess my question is are short handed play profitable enough to add into my choice of table? I used to play only 6max and did pretty well. Approx. what is the difference btwn 6max and full ring in terms of variability? i know 6mx usually requires alot more aggression, but i don't how much that effects of variability when playing micro stakes (which is usually a shove fest alot of the time with marginal hands).

[Daemon10 0]

No question??? Full ring

[Solar 0]

I have no problems playing patiently as i usually play while doing h/w and fold ALOT but still get paid off with premium hands

I would not recommend this. You will win more and learn more if when you play poker, you give it maximum focus.

No question??? Full ring

In your opinion.Play whichever you enjoy the most. I prefer 6 max because I like the way the game plays 6 handed. There is more scope for playing funky starting hands and being aggressive in the right spots which I enjoy. I have swapped back and forth a number of times and have settled on 6max because I find it more fun. I believe 6 max has greater varience, but this shouldn't affect your decision much.

[RsHwK 0]

I would not recommend this. You will win more and learn more if when you play poker, you give it maximum focus.In your opinion.Play whichever you enjoy the most. I prefer 6 max because I like the way the game plays 6 handed. There is more scope for playing funky starting hands and being aggressive in the right spots which I enjoy. I have swapped back and forth a number of times and have settled on 6max because I find it more fun. I believe 6 max has greater varience, but this shouldn't affect your decision much.

I think full ring games are better for newer players who havent mastered the aggression and post flop skills necessary to be successful at short-handed games. I think full ring games would suit you better since you sound like a very tight player. It can also depend on the limits you are playing. You might be able to crush micro limit 6 handed depending on the table, but I would stick to full ring games until you have established a bankroll. Once you have a bankroll and start to move up through the limits, start looking into becoming a more aggressive player, you will never get any action at higher limits playing only premium hands. you want to keep your opponents guessing, hope this helps.Josh

[trystero 0]

Listen to Solar. I think you're asking the wrong questions, "how do I minimize swings," "what's the best way to build my bankroll," etc. It's more important to improve your general poker skills than it is to eliminate variance. The time to do this is at the micros when mistakes aren't expensive. You don't want to make it to 100nl with no real clue how to play poker, get run over by the regulars, and find yourself in marginal spots you have no experience with. With your current frame of mind, you're on track to becoming the most exploitable type of regular; the weak-tight nit who thinks he's a TAG.IMO you should play whichever game you feel most comfortable with, FR or 6-max, and concentrate on playing good, competent poker (e.g. isolating limpers, stealing blinds, opening wider in position, double barreling nits, trapping maniacs, etc). Experiment with being looser in position and tighter OOP (fwiw these are my 6max stats, which are kinda extreme as I'm a position fanatic, 31/23 OTB and 12/12 UTG). Not like I'm a poker god or anything, but you should get the idea. Viewing the game as TAG or LAG creates an unhelpful dichothomy.

[Tration101 0]

well let me clarify one point: ive been playing for about 3 yrs and have had success playing 6max on FT. I have no problem switching up my play in terms of using position, exploiting weaker opponents, and playing creatively post flop. I guess i was trying to be specific about the question and it's relation to the micro stakes on PS. It seems like the creative play that i would implement on higher levels is almost wasted alot of the time when the players will call down almost anything. Considering that... it seems almost impossible to lose playing the micro stakes when you get paid off like 90% of the time without getting too tricky with your made hands. I do plan on being more attentive later on during my BR building at higher levels, but it seems like there is VERY LITTLE to learn at the micro stakes in relation to the higher stakes.

[hank213 1,823]

I posted a few days ago that i was attempting to build up a roll on Pokerstars. i've never really played much on that site, but have had some initial success playing the micro limits. My question is related to opinions of whether i should focus on full ring games vs. short handed play for cash games. Ideally i want to minimize the number and size of downward swings... is this easier to do playing full ring?? I have no problems playing patiently as i usually play while doing h/w and fold ALOT but still get paid off with premium hands (people don't notice me only playing J's+). Any advice would be appreciated.Edit: Well i guess my question is are short handed play profitable enough to add into my choice of table? I used to play only 6max and did pretty well. Approx. what is the difference btwn 6max and full ring in terms of variability? i know 6mx usually requires alot more aggression, but i don't how much that effects of variability when playing micro stakes (which is usually a shove fest alot of the time with marginal hands).

Let me preface this by saying my post is mostly theorhetical and more designed to stimulate debate. It could very well be waaaaay off base but this is my intuition. It seems to me that with 6max vs full ring you'll be involved in more hands due to the nature of the game. The blinds come around more frequently so to beat the rake and blinds you'll be forced to play a greater number of marginal hands somewhat aggressively while still trying to get paid off well on your big hands. It then follows that 6max is going to have a tendency, if only slight, to be a bit more "swingy." Of course, this would all depend on your abilities when it comes to pot control and post flop evaluation of relative hand strength. As far as profitability for inclusion in your rotation it would seem that the correct answer would vary highly from player to player so the best way for you to come to a conclusion is solid record keeping. Track your stats, even if it's over a relatively moderate sample size and the answers should become clearer.

[SCS 0]

well let me clarify one point: ive been playing for about 3 yrs and have had success playing 6max on FT. I have no problem switching up my play in terms of using position, exploiting weaker opponents, and playing creatively post flop. I guess i was trying to be specific about the question and it's relation to the micro stakes on PS. It seems like the creative play that i would implement on higher levels is almost wasted alot of the time when the players will call down almost anything. Considering that... it seems almost impossible to lose playing the micro stakes when you get paid off like 90% of the time without getting too tricky with your made hands. I do plan on being more attentive later on during my BR building at higher levels, but it seems like there is VERY LITTLE to learn at the micro stakes in relation to the higher stakes.

It's not that playing a non-ABC style isn't profitable at microstakes, it's that most people completely misapply it and/or do it too often.For example, double barreling a loose-passive fish or slow playing a big hand against them.