6-max questions

What kind of adjustments should I make on my hand selection for 6-max games? I enjoy six max because there is more action but I feel way too nitty compared to most of the players.

Let's start with general assumptions:
1. You raise UTG with a far wider range of hands and fear the UTG raise less than at full ring.
2. Three-betting and 3-bet stats are far more important as there is far more 3-betting in 6-max. At full ring or tournaments I would automuck AQ to any reraise that's not all-in because with most full-table play this is a hand that is crushing AQ. At 6-max that's probably not the case -- how far down can I go? AJo? ATs? Or is it better to continue after 3-bet with a hand like JTs/76s?
4. I assume we call 3-bets more often IP and fold to 3-bets more OOP. And that we should loosen up our three-bet requirements when facing an active button or SB. Also, how often do we 4-bet OOP vs. an aggression button?

My general rule of thumb is: I three-bet from BB vs. SB or Button quite liberally. I am 3-betting any PP vs. Button and AT+.

Some people take positional play too far -- yesterday a BB shipped 60 BBs over my 4-bet on the BTN with TT (I had AA).

I think an important stat we need to use more of is "fold to 3-bets." I saw a someone fold four straight steal attemps from the button vs. a BB three-bet. The next round I limped UTG with 65s and three-bet his raise from the button and he autofolded.

I suppose some of these questions are unanswerable but what I'm asking is the whole point that we are playing the player and position more in 6-max and our cards become less important?

I've been looking at my stats (which aren't great, btw) and a titanic percentage of my earnings are still coming from winning the occasional monster pot with AA/KK. Another sign I'm too tight/tourney minded?

This isn't exactly true. Mostly people loosen up in position, rather than in all positions. Sure, I open many more hands UTG at 6-max, but an UTG open still means considerable strength.


3-betting is important, yes. I fold AQ to some 3-bets, and some 3-bets I call with 87s if we are deep enough. Its just too hard to put a specific 3-bet calling range with me, but it certainly depends on the opponent.

You skipped 3. But um, yeah, all this is so very villain dependant. If you want a 3-betting article, read here: http://www.cardschat.com/f11/move-be...3-bets-133959/

I rarely 3-bet ATs & AJs. They have too much value in normal sized pots & they fair poorly in 3-bet pots OOP. Any pair is debatable as well. Not to mention that this once again depends on your opponent's steal %, 3-bet call %, ect.

Not uncommon being only 60 bb's deep.

Ya.

Good cards are still good cards... just now playing 6-max, no one gives you credit for them.

I would say any PP vs. the SB. 88+ vs. the BTN and just call with the rest.

Why would it be better to 3-bet 99 vs. button, but just call with 22? (This question is meant to provoke debate).

Well to the obvious: It's a better hand. And if called is playable on more boards where villain may make second-best hand (we have overpair or sets more often when villain has top pair or SD). Whereas 22 is unplayable without improvement?

1) How much would you value 99 as an over-pair in a 3-bet pot?

2) In a 3-bet pot does it make a difference whether you've made a set with 22 or 99?

3) If you were going to make a bluff catcher middle pair type hand, would you rather do it in a small pot, or a big one.

4) Do you think you are getting implied odds to set mine against a reg who raises 45% of his hands on the button?

You are right and I was thinking of the problem of unnecessarily bloating the pot but I am also assuming that BTN raises light so often we have good fold equity against much of his range -- and 99 is a healthy favorite over AK/AQ on most flops. If called and leading out/cbetting most flops it has to be +EV as villain will miss and/or not have an overpair the majority of the time, no?

BTW, I finished third in a large-field 6-max MTT recently, but I've found that ring is wayyyyy different. I played much tighter than everyone else and it seemed to work well....

I think you made two key statements here. But you need to realize, both of these things (fold equity preflop & when you c-bet the flop) has nothing to do with the cards you are holding.

If you c-bet a flop with 99 or 22 in a 3-bet pot, and get called, you pretty much have to shut down unless you have a set, or some other flop that is very favorable for your hand. The difference between the two is that 99 actually has good showdown value against a button raiser's range, but it doesn't fair well against a 3-bet calling range (unless that 3-bet calling range is very wide).

There's a pretty standard theorum (started on "another forum you post at") that says there are 4 classes of hands:

1) Class 1: Hands strong enough that you can bet or raise for value, and villain will call with worse often enough.

2) Class 2: Hands that still have value against villain's range, but betting folds enough of his range away so that there's not value in betting.

3) Class 3: Hands that have some equity against villain's range, and these hands should be turned into bluffs if we have fold equity.

4) Class 4: Hands that have no value, and should be folded.

The classic situation of a hand that falls into class 2 is KK on an A72 board. Its a simple WA/WB situation, and you can't really bet the flop as all worse hands fold and all better hands call. But your hand still has a lot of value, so its too good to fold to 1 bet, or turn into a bluff.

I think hands like 99, KQ, KJs, AJ, ATs fall into this category of class 2 when the button raises. When we 3-bet these hands, most of the time, we fold out all worse hands, and get called by all better hands. Sure, we have initiative, but we're out of position with a hand that is an underdog against the button's range. There's a lot of potential for us to get bluffed off of the best hand, or for us to put a ton of money into the pot badly, because the hands we make with these starting cards aren't super strong.

Obviously, this changes when the button opens up his calling range a ton, or we can squeeze the small blind at the same time. But that's not very typical.

I still think that the button is 3-bet calling a lot with KQ, 88, 76, JT, etc.

but your points are well taken. So we should 3-bet with AK, TT+, 22, JT, 98 and call with AJ, AT, 99?

This totally depends on their % to steal, and their fold to 3-bet stat, but yes, in general you want to call with hands that have value postflop against their range.

And I prefer to flat with suited cards like AJs, or KJs. With no initiative, and being out of position, we really need to hit a large number of flops in order to continue. That suitedness makes about 10% more flops that we have enough equity to continue on. But even then, we'll only be flopping enough equity to continue about 45% of the time.

But yeah, like I wrote in the 3-betting post, against some super nits you can't really 3-bet AQ for value. Against other players, you can 3-bet AJ for value, because they're just not going to fold any of their stealing range which is super wide.