So much fail in this thread (except for the comments about Caesar's being mismanaged).

Most live players, even regs, are not nits. They might play tight, but they're supposed to play tight in full-game cash. Being tight and being a nit are not the same thing. It's easy to gamble up online. You're playing in a different situation, a less skillful form of the game, such that you put $100 on ten games instead of $1,000 on a single game, hoping to make 10 bets with X edge instead of 1 bet with 10x edge. When you switch to playing real poker, you'll make the same psychological change everyone else does, for the same reason. I think it was Phil Galfond who said that even a table full of internet players, in a live game, quickly start playing like live players.

Live regs don't mind playing short, for the most part. I've played lots of short-handed poker live, so have we all. They might prefer full games, but maybe they're better suited for full games, in which case their preference is proper. But if a game is getting short at the end of the night, they'll keep playing.

The people whining about playing 7-handed are almost always in 10-seat tables. Get rid of 10-seat tables. People notice how many seats are open more than they notice how many are occupied. But +1 to 8-max games.

What live players don't want to do is stare at the auto-shuffler light. Short handed games consist of too few flops. Muck, muck, raise, muck, muck, next hand. No rake, no action, just watching the dealer tapping her fingers while waiting for the shuffler to finish the deck. That sucks.

But I commend the Wynn for trying. Try and fail, okay, at least you tried. But try and succeed, cool. There's only upside.

They should do this.

I don't work for Aria, I just helped them get the game started by writing the regulations along with noted PLO author/expert Jeff Hwang. The two of us saw a need and brought the idea to Aria, we showed them how to structure the game and gave them the policies they would need to keep the game runing all the time - which in turn attracts players like yourself. They liked our vision and made it happen.

Personally I'd prefer to play in a structure like the WSOP's 5/5 where there is a button straddle on virtually every hand (contrary to what dandinkens thinks would happen) and the stacks are SUPER deep but I know that maintaining the game is more important in the long run, the Vegas economy doesn't have the players to maintain a game that deep. Sadly, that will be the same situation with the Wynn 6 -Max games.. the got the need right, but the execution is just plain wrong.

- TT

How about 8-handed max, 5/10, 5 ante, 2k min, no max?

So the room with 80+ person wait lists at peak times decided its a good idea to put fewer people in play at any given time? Interesting.

6 max doesn't work live for all the reasons that have been outlined in this thread. Makes me wonder about the competency of the people in charge at the Wynn that they would think it is an idea worth trying. Were none of them around when the Mirage tried it and failed?

+1 but with .50 ante should juice up the action enough.

Some quick other ideas:

- Make the tables actually look reasonably distinct rather than just being a 9-handed table with fewer seats. Make 6max tables seem like the 'Business' class that bridges the economy class of low stakes and the first class of higher stakes games that are often sectioned off/in separate rooms. You want to give off the impression of selectivity and uniqueness, otherwise it just seems like a normal poker game that's been cut almost in half for no real reason and thus inherently 'inferior' in the eyes of casual players.
- I think a time charge tends to hurt games lower than 5/10 since casual players don't normally notice rake (or vastly underestimate how much money it takes off the table) but time charges quantify it far too visibly and they become uncomfortable at having to 'pay to play'. But at the same time its kind of hard to make 'lower rake!' be a huge draw for the same reasons i.e. recreational players not noticing rake to begin with. A good compromise might be to increase comps per hour; it'll keep the grinders somewhat appeased, make the casual players think 'oh man I want to play at the that table, they give you more free money!', and it's less of a hit for the casino compared to lower rake since oftentimes comps go unspent or tourists don't even bother making a player's card.
- Lastly, DON'T CALL IT 6MAX. Advertise it in a way that there only being six players at the table is a requisite for the implementation of a new type of poker experience, rather than vice versa.

I agree that 6max has a lot of incompatibility with the live setting that makes it difficult to truly propagate (kind of like the issues PLO is currently having), but like PLO I don't see why it can't develop a bit of a niche in poker rooms in the future.

this was definitely true 5+ years ago and it may still be true today, but I think we are clearly moving in the direction where the average poker player is much better and more informed about the game. As a result, I think more and more of today's players understand the reasons why shorthanded is more exciting(and lets players use their "skill" more) and would be ok with it. Whether or not the game has evolved enough to sustain live 6 max...I'm not sure. But I do think we are heading in that direction, and I applaud the Wynn for trying to be proactive.

when did the mirage try it? The poker knowledge of the average player is something that is constantly changing(the games are getting tougher, players are getting better), and as such I think that just because something didn't work in the past doesn't mean it won't work in the future(especially if its the more advanced players who prefer it).

I'm really surprised that people don't think that recreational players will like 6 max. They are generally want to play in action games where people play pots against them and they can gamble rather than play against nitty regs, so 6 max should be far more appealing to them than full-ring; and less appealing to nitty live pros.

The fish loved 6 max online, I really don't can't see why it would be different live.

It's already been mentioned, but it bears repeating. The worst effect this change will have is splitting their existing 2/5 player pool.

I've seen this same scenario play out at a Seneca property is WNY. They offered a 2/5 500 max (raked, eligible for BBJ) and a 5/5 500 max (time, not eligible for BBJ) for a while. All they did was split their player pool to the point where it was harder to get either game going, even though there were enough players if they only offered one structure. In the end the 2/5 structure won out, b/c the casual players and tourists wanted to be eligible for the BBJ and the regs got sick of only playing against each other at 5/5.

Live regs and live fish hate SH games. They just wait for the game to be full before starting.

x2

Also fishy players like to bluff nits off pots. Nits will not play 6max.