2 NL FR --> 2 NL 6 Max --> 5 NL FR

I saw a reference to this in a thread this morning and rather than jack that thread, figured I'd make another.

Is 6 max a logical step between 2 NL FR and 5 NL FR?

If so, why?? Because of the increased aggression factor in 6 Max?

I'd start by taking some shots at 5nl. If you feel you need to ramp up your aggression level to play there, then spending some time at 2nl 6m makes more sense than if you find it's not a priority.

I also found 6X is more aggressive. The man more aggressive,the more difficult to choise call or fold.So it is hard to play.

I'm not sure if it's very logical. FR and 6-max play very different and going from 6M to FR when moving up just for a softer game is not a good idea imo. I think you're better off playing your main game, the one you're best at.

yeah no point in playing 6max if your preferred game is FR.

I think if you play 6max you'll get your answer a lot faster with poker. If your a winning or losing player for the moment.

More hands per hr.

FR and 6max are different enough games that 6max never needs to be a stepping stone to a higher level of FR play. The person who said that probably hasn't done a lot of moving through stakes.