2nlhe full ring vs 6max?

I'm currently 4 tabling at 2nl full ring on pokerstars(.fr) here in france. At the moment I'm still fairly early on the learning curve, but I have a reasonable understanding of the game from a basics pov.

The only reason I'm asking this question is because (and I don't know if this is the same in the states on ps.com) but all the action seems to be on the 6max tables at 2nl. By that I mean, when I open up the lobby 9am in the morning and filter for full ring there might be 5 tables to choose from. Same time I filter for 6max and there's like 20-35 tables running. In the afternoon and evening there are far more tables running full ring (like 30-40), but always 2-3x as many at 6max.

This makes me wonder whether I should be playing 6max instead of full ring. I mean, is this where all the 'fish' are going for 'action'? Should I be sitting there playing abc, practising my game and trying to pick up the money along the way?

The only reservation I have is that apparently it can be more 'swingy' and for a relative newbie like me, well I wonder whether it's a good place to start? Also I understand I would need to open up my hand ranges a little, but considering sometimes I find myself doing this dynamically at full ring tables because it's gone down to 6 handed... well I already do this to some extent.

BR = $220, money is not the issue, improving my game is all that matters to me at the moment.

Advice/opinions gratefully received.

More fish play 6max apparently because of the fast action. You will find the aggression is so much more at 6 max too so if you can't take big swings I'd stick to solid full ring games.

In 6 max abc poker can work to a degree but from my experience it's isn't enough you have to loosen up some what and the whole strategy is completely different. Where as you would fold K,J os UT+1, you might well find opening up to take down the blinds or getting someone to call with a wider range is ideal.

Thanks for your response.

ramdeebam said:

More fish play 6max apparently because of the fast action. You will find the aggression is so much more at 6 max too so if you can't take big swings I'd stick to solid full ring games.

Click to expand...

Yes, I really believe it's as I suspected. Doing some more 'research' into the matter for the last half an hour or so, and I find most of the players are only sitting at one table. Compared to the full ring games where it's 50/50 that a player is sitting at 2 or more tables - often many more.

As for taking big swings. I suppose the reason I brought it up was because that's one of the things I've seen written many times in threads where people are talking about the difference between 6max and full ring. However, I've also read many times that 'real poker' (whatever that means) is more likely to be found there, meaning (I imagine) that you need to be a better player to succeed in the long term. Well this is something I want to be. Coupled with the amount of instructional videos and reading material out there that seem to concentrate their examples on 6max, it makes me wonder whether I should cut my teeth here rather than grinding out full ring, that's half filled with nitty regulars anyways, and about 5 tables deep off-peak!

Is it really such a big adjustment to move from full ring to 6max? Or even is it such a big mistake to start out at 6max?

6max is not that aggresive

Cafeman31 said:

Thanks for your response.

Is it really such a big adjustment to move from full ring to 6max? Or even is it such a big mistake to start out at 6max?

Click to expand...

I personally started out at full ring but I did try 6 max. At the time I was still learning lots, starting hands, position etc. When I did try 6 max, all the stuff you learnt at full ring just doesn't really apply any more in a lot of cases. Many hands you would drop in FR are monsters to play, in position.

After lots of grinding at FR I then started playing 6 max more once I learnt what ranges to open up to aggressive players as well as tight players and so on. I think you should be better playing FR to start with to get into it more and get a full understand of position and hand ranges against particular players.

I don't think I'd want to go back to FR now though as it's far more exciting, big pots, lots more action and hands to keep you no the ball at all times. It's just the swings you have to get used to in 6 max.

If you're are a more complete player than I was when I first started out and you want to play 6max, then give it a go but if you're new to it all then you will see people playing hands which you thought shouldn't be played from what you was taught, like I say I played both but coulden't hand 6max properly at first. I felt out of my depth most of the time.

As for is it proper poker, then I'm not sure what you mean by that. There is a lot more you have to think about and be open to all possible hands. Not as in FR where an early position raise would "usually" signify a good hand, A,K,Ace,Kings,High pairs etc. At 6 max, depending on what reads players have on you they might widen their range to something like 5,6suited if you're tight for example.

bgomez89 said:

6max is not that aggresive

Click to expand...

Well how do you define aggressive in NL hold em?

It's far more aggressive than FR

Also, to be fair it depends on the limits. 2nl and 5nl for example are very aggressive full of donkeys pushing all in pre flop a lot!

OK, thanks for your opinions... I think I'll stick with FR for now.

i would think that aggressive players bet alot. There are still a ton of loose passives at 6max. If FR players are more passive than 6max then why the hell is it so hard for people to beat?

ramdeebam said:

It's far more aggressive than FR

Click to expand...

Not really.

Table aggression is table dependent. 6max isn't so much more aggressive, than it is a game where you see more action.

I like 6max more because it's just funner. But I am also a loose fish.

The bigger question is what damage are you doing to yourself playing poker at 2nl tables. You might end up like me.

cAPSLOCK said:

The bigger question is what damage are you doing to yourself playing poker at 2nl tables. You might end up like me.

Click to expand...

Heaven forbid

But it is weird. I was playing 10nl trying to hone my game. I was breaking even, making huge rookie errors, but still managing to not lose. The advice was to move down to 2nl and get my poker basics sorted out. The first 1000 hands there I lost 8 buy-ins!!! I was thinking, wtf is it with these guys, they are nutters. Then I tightened up, and starting folding more, and believing more about what they were telling me bet wise, and bang, my graph started turning upwards. So, I'm getting better at playing very weak players

I suppose I should just stick here until I've won enough buy-ins to move up.

c9h13no3 said:

Not really.

Click to expand...

I'm clearly playing a different game then. However, I have noticed that on cake poker they aren't aggressive but pokerstars they are far more aggressive..

Maybe it's site dependant.

Cafeman31 said:

The first 1000 hands there I lost 8 buy-ins!!! I was thinking, wtf is it with these guys, they are nutters. Then I tightened up, and starting folding more, and believing more about what they were telling me bet wise, and bang, my graph started turning upwards.

Click to expand...

That's good. And yes I think 2nl is perfectly fine to logs lots of hands for the purpose of getting a good handle on the mechanics of the game. Just keep in mind when you do inevitably move up that the game will change a little bit.