Always go 9-max instead of 6/5-max or less

R

Rational Madman

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Total posts
2,478
Chips
0
In tournaments, you can argue that you can profit better from smaller tournaments as more fish tend to turn up to them (although this thinking implies you are too bad to beat good players so I smirk at it when people use it).

In cash games, however, there is absolutely no reason to sit at a 6-max table instead of a 9-max one and furthermore DEFINITELY no reason to be at a headsup or 4-max table.

If you feel that you aren't able to enter enough hands at a big table that's totally fine and the beauty of Internet poker is multi-tabling is possible. So multi-table instead of moving to a smaller table if you feel capable of handling more hands per X time period.

Why do I argue this? No, not because there are more players to put money into the jackpot, that reasoning is ridiculous as that means more hands to outdraw you. On the contrary, my reasoning is far simpler; free folding. That's right, the concept that you can fold far more hands at 0 cost to your stack/bankroll than in smaller tables (even if only 6 people are physically at the 9-max table, you will find that means that most 6-max tables are only filled with 4 as it's a quiet period). So think about this; if you can fold more hands at 0-cost per X amount of hands, then you end up profiting more overall from your actual wins as the profits aren't seeping through, or are doing it as seldom as is feasible.

This is why I love cash games, everything about them is such that you can always be ensuring maximum profit before you even play a single hand. I am not going to rant about tournaments being bad, just that cash games allow the ability to even know for certain that you are in the most profitable version of the game type you are playing before you even sit down.
 
IPlay

IPlay

Bum hunts 25NL
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Total posts
2,593
Chips
0
I prefer 6 max because I feel like I have an edge against the players at the table so I want to play as many post flop hands as possible against them. 9 max is nice though because you are rarely faced with too many tough decisions because of the slow pace of play and weaker players.
 
R

Rational Madman

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Total posts
2,478
Chips
0
Not sure what you mean by 'edge' how don't you have an edge on a 9-max multi-table where you see just as many hands?
 
Dailon Arroyo Blandon

Dailon Arroyo Blandon

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
May 22, 2017
Total posts
1,402
Awards
11
CR
Chips
37
I prefer to play in tables of 9 players ... both in cash tables and in the tournaments ... personally I feel less pressure to play a range of hands more open since in the tables of 9 players the BB do not arrive as fast as in The tables of 6 or less players ... I think it is a matter of tastes ... in the measure that more comfortable you feel playing poker more chances of winning you will have ..!
 
R

Rational Madman

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Total posts
2,478
Chips
0
I prefer to play in tables of 9 players ... both in cash tables and in the tournaments ... personally I feel less pressure to play a range of hands more open since in the tables of 9 players the BB do not arrive as fast as in The tables of 6 or less players ... I think it is a matter of tastes ... in the measure that more comfortable you feel playing poker more chances of winning you will have ..!
No, you can feel comfortable as a smaller table and still lose more. Feelings are irrelevant.
 
IPlay

IPlay

Bum hunts 25NL
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Total posts
2,593
Chips
0
No, you can feel comfortable as a smaller table and still lose more. Feelings are irrelevant.

Feeling more comfortable/confident is relevant if you want to make sure you are playing your A game.

As for your reply to me I mean if I have an edge on the table, I want them to be forced to play more hands because the blinds are coming around faster. I don't want them to be able to just fold until they get good hands. Also most the sites that I am able to play on have 4 full ring tables max which leads to ~120 hands/hour and I can get 170 hands/hour 2 tabling 6 max.
 
R

Rational Madman

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Total posts
2,478
Chips
0
If you stay at those tables you will continue to think what you think about poker as you said in the other thread. People who hit those tables regularly are indeed not fit to raise a family on that income.

What you are missing out in your analysis is that, yes, safer play is possible for the opponents but it is also far more viable to play safe for YOU.

So what if you see around 50 less hands in given time? You will be much more capable of profiting from the 120 than the 170. :)
 
IPlay

IPlay

Bum hunts 25NL
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 7, 2013
Total posts
2,593
Chips
0
Your post is logically flawed and deserves only this as a response
 
P

pietpikel

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Total posts
156
Chips
0
In tournaments, you can argue that you can profit better from smaller tournaments as more fish tend to turn up to them (although this thinking implies you are too bad to beat good players so I smirk at it when people use it).

In cash games, however, there is absolutely no reason to sit at a 6-max table instead of a 9-max one and furthermore DEFINITELY no reason to be at a headsup or 4-max table.

If you feel that you aren't able to enter enough hands at a big table that's totally fine and the beauty of Internet poker is multi-tabling is possible. So multi-table instead of moving to a smaller table if you feel capable of handling more hands per X time period.

Why do I argue this? No, not because there are more players to put money into the jackpot, that reasoning is ridiculous as that means more hands to outdraw you. On the contrary, my reasoning is far simpler; free folding. That's right, the concept that you can fold far more hands at 0 cost to your stack/bankroll than in smaller tables (even if only 6 people are physically at the 9-max table, you will find that means that most 6-max tables are only filled with 4 as it's a quiet period). So think about this; if you can fold more hands at 0-cost per X amount of hands, then you end up profiting more overall from your actual wins as the profits aren't seeping through, or are doing it as seldom as is feasible.

This is why I love cash games, everything about them is such that you can always be ensuring maximum profit before you even play a single hand. I am not going to rant about tournaments being bad, just that cash games allow the ability to even know for certain that you are in the most profitable version of the game type you are playing before you even sit down.
There are many sides for and against.

I'll give you a perfect example. Top South African online NL holdem player. Online name piejay (Cy Jassinowky). He left Jo'burg, and went to live in Vegas maybe 10 years ago. He used to play the majority of his games heads up (online - ultimate bet). Why ?

If you have an advantage (better player, smarter, make better decisions, have more experience etc etc), it is better to play heads up. You know in the long run you will beat your opponent. Just when, how, and for how much.

It also reduces variance. There is nothing worse on a multi player table, than losing to the fish, and then seeing him blast your (ex)chips off to everyone except you. When you are playing heads up, these chips are really just 'loaned out'. They will make their way back home soon enough.
 
R

Rational Madman

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Total posts
2,478
Chips
0
There are many sides for and against.

I'll give you a perfect example. Top South African online NL holdem player. Online name piejay (Cy Jassinowky). He left Jo'burg, and went to live in Vegas maybe 10 years ago. He used to play the majority of his games heads up (online - ultimate bet). Why ?

If you have an advantage (better player, smarter, make better decisions, have more experience etc etc), it is better to play heads up. You know in the long run you will beat your opponent. Just when, how, and for how much.

It also reduces variance. There is nothing worse on a multi player table, than losing to the fish, and then seeing him blast your (ex)chips off to everyone except you. When you are playing heads up, these chips are really just 'loaned out'. They will make their way back home soon enough.
He would have earned a lot more (by losing a lot less) had he stuck to 9-max.
 
M

Mike D_

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Total posts
240
Chips
0
100% agree with the first post; more folds, better spots to pick up ur winnings!
 
R

Rational Madman

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Total posts
2,478
Chips
0
100% agree with the first post; more folds, better spots to pick up ur winnings!
Exactly! You can much better analyze other's hand strength too because they play off of each other not just against you so you can sometimes not raise a single chip and already have a strong read on others' hands if you are in late position (or in early and checked).
 
P

pietpikel

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 14, 2015
Total posts
156
Chips
0
He would have earned a lot more (by losing a lot less) had he stuck to 9-max.
Believe me, this guy earned plenty. He was playing 3 head up games at same time ($25/$50) and starting 10K a table. 2 hours later he's sitting at 15K , 22K etc.

Top Top online holdem player.
 
F

fraggy

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Jul 12, 2017
Total posts
20
Chips
0
since i only played 9max tables by now in the tournaments I competed, I agree with OP, since for the first , more free flops as he told, and for the second, my favourite: you got more fools who go all-in. when 2 people go all-in, this means, you are after this hand definetly 1 rank higher, cuz one of them is done after the hand. Especially in the Tournaments with 5k or more players, after 3 hands approx. 1k are done already. and this is my personal advantage on 9 ppl tables.
 
K

KFlint

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Total posts
180
Chips
0
Just saw this thread. Think it's pretty obvious that it's easier to beat a full ring game. But, the point of all this, to me at least, is to become better and the amount of tough spots you'll encounter at 6-max will improve your postflop play much more than the eternal set mining against EP raiser and general boring play fullring brings. As for heads-up, a dominant hu player wil crush your soul at any table size over time because everyone can make easy decisions, money is made in marginal spots too.
 
Keith_MM

Keith_MM

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 13, 2013
Total posts
1,334
Awards
1
Chips
3
not sure if its still the same since stars cut the rewards right back but 2nl and 5nl FR would have a range of players , once you get to 10nl it was pretty much a rakeback grinding nitfest with regs just swapping coolers.
 
S

Sidetracked

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Jun 30, 2016
Total posts
1,294
Awards
2
Chips
0
I used to play limit 9 handed cash. I now much prefer 6 max NL. Full ring just seems boring now.
 
Grinderella

Grinderella

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Total posts
92
Chips
0
9 Vs. 6

Interesting post. I did go to 6-Max for a while but have since returned to Full Ring. My reasons for me were:

-Easier to conceal monsters
-Get more action with hands as there is more of chance that someone picked up a strong hand that is weaker than yours.
-More fish and lags
-There is more money on the table
-The pace is slower so fish don't feel as rushed/stressed, so they stay playing for longer.
-It costs 33% less per orbit.
-More players to observe and profile

The list goes on ... but each to their own :D

 
K

KFlint

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 14, 2016
Total posts
180
Chips
0
I found that at the micro stakes 2NL/5NL it's way easier to get paid postflop at fullring because there is more multiway action and less squeeze. Multiway postflop is a huge leak for many micro players I believe, many are way too loose.

I would play both type in the same session but it makes my head spin to switch back and forth ;) So I chose 6-max!
 
2

2dizzYMATH

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 19, 2017
Total posts
51
Chips
0
Interesting post. I did go to 6-Max for a while but have since returned to Full Ring. My reasons for me were:

-Easier to conceal monsters
-Get more action with hands as there is more of chance that someone picked up a strong hand that is weaker than yours.
-More fish and lags
-There is more money on the table
-The pace is slower so fish don't feel as rushed/stressed, so they stay playing for longer.
-It costs 33% less per orbit.
-More players to observe and profile

The list goes on ... but each to their own :D




This
 
Dorugremon

Dorugremon

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 23, 2013
Total posts
456
Awards
1
Chips
19
Play where you feel comfortable. No one can fault you for that.

In cash games, however, there is absolutely no reason to sit at a 6-max table instead of a 9-max one and furthermore DEFINITELY no reason to be at a headsup or 4-max table.

If it's a choice between full ring with nine nits who make min-buys, or a six-max with deep stacked fishies, I'll go with the six-max every time.

Why do I argue this? No, not because there are more players to put money into the jackpot, that reasoning is ridiculous as that means more hands to outdraw you. On the contrary, my reasoning is far simpler; free folding. That's right, the concept that you can fold far more hands at 0 cost to your stack/bankroll than in smaller tables (even if only 6 people are physically at the 9-max table, you will find that means that most 6-max tables are only filled with 4 as it's a quiet period). So think about this; if you can fold more hands at 0-cost per X amount of hands, then you end up profiting more overall from your actual wins as the profits aren't seeping through, or are doing it as seldom as is feasible.
Not true. All folding costs you something. If each pot starts with 1.5BB (pretty standard these days) and it's you and eight other guys, then your share is:

1.5/9= 1/6(BB)

At six-max, it would be: 1.5/6= 0.25BB

It's more expensive to fold at six-max, but you're also going up against fewer hands, and every other player has the same dilemma, so that's a wash.

It helps to be able to play more than one game. You don't want to pass up rich games just because it's six-max. It also helps when full ring games go short handed to know how to adjust and exploit a new situation where your opponents aren't adjusting properly, if at all.
 
Zorba

Zorba

27
Platinum Level
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Total posts
41,800
Awards
15
AQ
Chips
169
Your post is logically flawed and deserves only this as a response
[emoji106] [emoji106]


But yours (and my) logic is limited when compared to the great ones.

[emoji87] [emoji86] [emoji85]
 
Jblocher1

Jblocher1

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Total posts
2,645
Chips
0
I'm embarrassed for you reading your OP to be completely honest. Nobody likes playing 9 max cash games other than super nits like yourself. If you are a good post flop player, you want to be playing a lot of hands post flop. You wouldn't want to wait around for absolute nuts before entering a pot. Your whole concept of "free folding" makes 0 sense. There are 3 extra hands in a cycle... big whoop. I would honestly rather watch paint dry than be a 9 max nitfest reg.

To advise people to only play 9 max is awful advice and I hope nobody reading this thread listens to it.
 
T

trent32la

Legend
Bronze Level
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Total posts
2,852
Awards
1
Chips
0
Instead of prison, criminals should be sentenced to play 1 million hands of 2nl full ring poker, guaranteed they won't offend after that experience!
 
Jblocher1

Jblocher1

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Total posts
2,645
Chips
0
Instead of prison, criminals should be sentenced to play 1 million hands of 2nl full ring poker, guaranteed they won't offend after that experience!



I wouldn't even j-walk if I knew there was a chance I would be sentenced to that
 
Top