I realize that. I just don't think the singular problem of having to play more pots is enough to deter the average person from wanting to play shorthanded. I think it's much more nuanced than that.

Yawn.

Been tried. Never works.

Why do people think this will piss off players? There is obviously going ot be 2 lists....a regular 2-5, and a 6 max 2-5....if local nits dont want to play 6 max they get on the regular list. Should be $3 rake with no chopping....I think it's a great idea.

I'd rather play against 8 players I'm better than. That, and the fact that a 6-max table should attract better players and less fish, IMO.

I also agree that the button straddle sucks. It is honestly just terrible for the game. The blinds get to play better poker because they are first to act and don't feel as "priced in" as they would when they are last to act facing a raise and call(s). Straddles are already lame enough and on the button is the worst. If you want to a bigger game then just play a bigger game. Stuff is annoying.

Nobody said it will piss off players. They said it won't work .... as it hasn;t worked in the past.

What is the criteria to determine if a game "works"? It running once? Twice? A year? Does it have to run on a daily basis or become the main game in the room for the game to "work"? Or a more analytical way to look at it is, how much does it cost the poker room to offer a game that never runs? The other side of the coin is how much does it effect a player if a poker room offers a game they don't want to play in? If offering/running the game doesn't cost the poker room any money and the game runs once, isn't that EV+ for the room and for the players that wanted to play in the game?

I think you may be misunderstanding peoples response here. I don;t think anyone here is saying its horrible for Wynn to try to spread the game. I think people's responses are more in line with ..... hey if you like to play 6 max holdem don't get to excited because this game isn't going to take off.

But depending on exactly how the room promotes the game their can be negatives.

people who come to Wynn expecting the game to be going may become upset or feel mislead when they get there to find the game never goes even though the room says they spread it.

Its one thing to make it available as a game you will spread .... but when you start promoting it you risk upsetting people who come to play it when it doesn;t go (And I'm not saying they are justified in being upset ..... just that they may get upset)

Also I have seen rooms trying to promote a game actually hurt other games by keeping a dealer and table available for the game being pushed even when it doesn;t have much chance of going .... while they could be using that dealer and table for another game.

Offering the game is not a problem ..... but a casino can screw up how they promote the game.

I think it will hurt the room if it gets off the ground, as opposed to being a nonissue.

I posted this in the other thread

futhermore, all of the 6 max players are going to be on the list for the full games as well, which will cause problems when it comes to deciding which game to start first, artificially inflated waiting lists, etc

I think it kind of depends on the stakes too... People playing lower stakes are more passive and enjoy "seeing flops". Even the winning low stakes regs are often just playing to make a hand and value town the fish. And I havnt even mentioned the old man coffees who are sitting there and "QQ+" mining.

I think higher stakes games like 5/10 and 10/20 can work with 6-max structure. I def would LOVE to play 6-max 10/20 live... You can really open up, etc. but overall I think there would be several really big drawbacks that are essentially unavoidable:
1) a 6-max game would be tougher since the biggest fish will often prefer full tables (like on HSP, right?)
2) you'll get a lot of "spewy, mid-20s, LAGs" who know a little bit about poker
3) variance will likely increase
4) "live aspects" - if a guy takes a bathroom/smoke break the game is already 5-handed, if some guy goes to eat its 4-handed. The game will inevitably break into 3-handed a lot of the time (and this will make even the overconfident ego guys uncomfortable)

So yeah, it's a good idea and I think it has a better chance of working at higher stakes, but it brings a lot of drawbacks too.

I'd settle for 8-max (like on HSP, right?)

Live players are trained to think the table should be full and if it isn't then that is bad.

For whatever reason it is ingrained in everyone(the staff and players) that 10 players should always be jammed into every table.

They are used to playing 10 handed. So when a game gets short they complain because that isn't how the game is played.


If you are going to try this then the game should be 7-handed and when there is a list you get picked up after 5 minutes. You can't let people sitout in shorthanded games for a half hour or more.

The worst over-aggro online player, if he has any experience at all, is worlds better than the live passive fish at low stakes. The passivity and horribad play of the llsnl fish is beyond any level of fishiness in the online world. It's not just that they make horrible calls and are too loose, they also never make anything more than the minimum when they have the best hand, even in spots when it would take the worst play ever to not stack the other player, these fish find ways to do it.

6-max tables do not appeal to these types of players. And these players are the single best source of income for 1/3 and 2/5 games. I play 1/3 and 2/5 at the Wynn. I would love for the six-max tables to "work" because it will drive some of the competent players away from full ring, and maybe drive a limited number of aggro-gambol fish. The rest of the fish, the flop-seeing, call down with 2nd pair typed will stay.

Someone else pointed out in this thread that even the "good" llsnl players simply value town the crap out of these fish...this is entirely correct. A 6-max table full of 2p2ers would abuse me....but at a full ring 1/3 or 2/5, I think I do better because I just see cheap flops with multi-way hands in position and abuse fish who can't fold top pair or an overpair under any condition.

So I hope it works...I hope it drives away some of the competent players because it won't appeal to the passive flop-seers, and that's the vast majority of the players at low stakes no-limit, and the main source of profit. My hunch will be after a month, you guys will see abusing each other is not as fun or profitable as abusing the fish who only want full ring.

it can only work if there are lots of them going at the same time. or bad players will come in and want to play and cant and go to a full game.

plus the rake will be a killer shorter handed if you care about things like that.

Won't it be $3 max rake?

From what I have heard it will work on a time rake and not a drop, which is a good thing imo. The $3 max rake is only for limit games I believe.