Full Table or 6 Handed Limit?
I've always wanted to know which was more profitable.
Full table because you don't that many hands or 6 handed and play alot of hands but then alot of suck outs.
If your sitting at .50/1.00 or 1.00/2.00 how much would you start with at both full and short handed.
Full table because you don't that many hands or 6 handed and play alot of hands but then alot of suck outs.
If your sitting at .50/1.00 or 1.00/2.00 how much would you start with at both full and short handed.
Comments
A good run in short handed can be massively profitable, but it swings greater since you will inevtiably be playing more hands.
If you are an action junky and can take the swings go short handed.
Cheers
It's not a matter of more hands played. It's a matter of more hands played in marginal situations. 6 handed is higher variance probably because you're dealing with a lot more blind stealing/defending situations. At a full table, you're only in the blinds 20% of the time as opposed to 1/3rd the time at a full short table.
Assuming you're a winning player I believe 6-max can be more profitable since you're dealing with more decisions/hr (since you should be involved in more hands) and the opportunity to make more +EV decisions against bad players will yield you a greater expected return. Of course you have to be able to manage tilt if you happen to go on a really bad run. Full table on the other hand, to some degree you can just tighten up and wait for hands... If you do the same on a short table, the blinds will eat you alive.