Thanks for the replies. Here are some follow up questions/observations:
Originally Posted by absoluthamm
First off, HU is harder. Second, in HU you will be playing more hands, but you only have one person to take money from. In 6 max, you are able to take money from 5 other players and still play more hands. Also, in 6Max, you can throw away your crappiest hands, whereas, most of the time in HU, you play a lot more of your marginal and crap hands. If you ever notice, most of the pros will primarily be playing HU over anything else at the high stakes.
Following that reasoning a step further, wouldn’t FR be more attractive because you can be even more selective? Can’t you safely assume the 5 villains are also more selective w/in their range making the advantage negligible? Wouldn’t that only give you an advantage over the fishy players? Also, you now have to read and figure out 5 separate players opposed to just one HU where you can concentrate on exploiting only one person’s tendencies.
Isn’t that all based on your advantage coming from playing more hands against worse players though? And, since there are presumably better players playing 6 max than FR, decrease your advantage and therefore profit overall?
All based on the basic assumption:
More Fish = more profit
# fish FR > # fish 6 max
Profit FR > profit 6 max
Of course, the ratio
of fish to good players is what is really important because if the ratio is the same in FR and 6 max, you play more hands against the fish in 6 max which = more profit. Which makes sense initially, but the problems I have with that line of reasoning is what makes a player fishy in the first place is that they play too MANY pots in bad situations (usually). Therefore, wouldn’t the wider hand range in 6 max somewhat negate this advantage? And in reality, isn’t the ratio of fish to quality players less in 6 max? Or are there more action junky / gambler types in 6 max? Keep in mind I have no real experience with 6 max. Maybe 6 max amplifies a player’s weaknesses?
Additionally, wouldn’t the ability to be more selective in the hands/situations you play in full ring actually increase your edge over poor players? In FR, when you do play a pot, you should be able to get into better situations with higher EV which = increase your profit and maybe even more importantly decrease variance? (If you can achieve the same $$/hr win rate with less variance… I mean, duh?)
The argument that you can play more hands in 6 max doesn’t make sense to me when you factor the ability to multi-table. I think most people agree you can play more tables FR than 6 max (correct me if you disagree). So really, if you play the # tables FR up to your mental capacity/skill you theoretically should be playing the same number of pots in a given time as 6 max but against worse opponents, in more straight forward, easier to read, situations. This all translates into increased profit in my mind.
Your stats in poker tracker (bb/100) are naturally going to be less in FR because you’re playing less hands per 100 dealt. But your actual profit in $$/hr is going to increase because you can play more tables. The assumption is you can play the same number of pots/situations, by adding a few tables, just with a greater advantage against a bigger pool of fish in those pots. And, you can do this with less variance!
Seems like a no-brainer to me. What am I missing here?