Ever since zoom was released on PS I've been grinding 2nl and 5nl. Made over $400 on 2nl and like $200 on 5nl over a total of like 550k hands.

Now I'm starting over at $100 and I'm thinking if zoom really is that profitable? Seems like there's so many nits at FR now, how is the 6max - and what adjustments need to be made?

Or should I go normal tables?

Some opinions would be nice, pros/cons etc.

cheers

personally i enjoy zoom over regular, simply because i can rarely be sat down for over more than an hour, and with the big que's for good tables and setting up my nomral 24 tables I find it hard to enjoy a good 1hour stint, zoom allows me to do this.

As for for 6m against FR i really couldn't say anything, my knowledge there is very limited :P

Also keep in mind the 1 billion hand promo coming up on stars, maybe it's worth sticking around regular if you really don't mind them

Haven't really played any regular tables since I have the same issue as you. Such a bloody project to fire up 12-24 normal tables, when it's so simple to go 4-8 tables of zoom (different stakes w. 8 tbls). And you're always guaranteed there are players on the tables, not people who just leave after 3 hands followed by others who don't want to play a non-full table...


And concerning the 1billion hand thing: the chance is so small to even be dealt in that hand, so I won't even bother.

keep on ZOOM until NL25, then go normal tables, ZOOM is a good way to put volume and learn, and reg tables is a good way to make money with a good winrate, because there is more fish and regs are weaker.

but by now your goal should be improving, not making money.

actually reg tables are better to improve

6max Zoom plays pretty much like the FR normal tables imo. If you are going to play FR zoom then simply fold every time you are raised post flop without the nuts and you wont go far wrong.

hehe, yeh project is a good word :P

As for the Billion hand, I have been fortunate enough to bink one of these maybe a year ago, sadly I never won the hand but still had a nice little payday :P

When I zoom 2NL/5NL i normally load 4 FR and 4 6max....winrate seems to be about the same in both

Winrate @ zoom will be naturally lower and this cant really be argued much. Simply you wont have those 90/x type of whales at all at zoom due to the mechanics. Surely winrate wise regular tables are far better than zoom, but then there's a question of $/hr which without lots of testing is pretty hard to figure out.
What regards improving your game it's pretty much the same. IIRC 1 zoom table is considered as 4 regular tables so i'd imagine you get more time to spend on an individual decision playing zoom so if that's the case - you'd learn (if you'd try) by playing zoom. Of course it can be debated that at such stakes off-table works means a lot more than in-game efforts. As you only need to learn the very basics to start profiting.
So to sum all this bull**** up just play w/e feels better for you, as an individual person, and don't give a single **** about what others tell you because the differences are so ****ing minor...

6-max issue is pretty ******ed imo and unless somebody explains me finally why im wrong im gonna stick with it. Playing 6-max at micro stakes or anywhere lower than 100NL is just stupid - FR is so so so much softer, regs are awful and the difference in rake is really HUGE. I've seen so many players playing 10/9 style at 200NL or even higher and still profiting... And Im talking about this year, not some 2005 stuff when everythin was easy. I don't see a single upside of playing 6-max. Sure, at a certain level you'll realize that FR games don't run as much as 6-max does, lets say starting with 400NL but until then you'll already have a solid grasp of post-flop play, specific pre-flop stuff and if you're beating 400NL/600NL FR you shouldn't, in theory?, have too many problems adjusting to 6-max lets say 400NL.

sick answer.

wp indeed

i found this part really odd, maybe its just because my WR is higher at 6max tho.

for anyone whos interested my rake paid at 10nl is

6max = 6.9bb/100
FR = 4.6bb/100

2.3bb/100 which no matter what your WR is, is a huge margin.

My guess is that there's 2 things that make FR softer which are closely connected to each other: rake and blinds. But they're actually pretty much the same thing as when you post blinds more often - you're forced to fight for them otherwise your winrate will decrease big time and when you fight more - you pay more rake. So taking your example it's a pretty big margin knowing that so so many grinders barely manage to have ~2bb/100 winrate...
Im no theory guy, I don't really have much interesting stuff to say about this

Really? So you would say Full-Ring NL25 zoom is MUCH softer than 6max NL25 zoom?

Well, I have played both and will disagree. While the regs at NL25 zoom FR are bad indeed, probably a bit worse than the regs at 6max NL25 zoom (not much), there seems to me to be more non-regs-players (=fish) at NL25 6max zoom than FR.

Also all your talk about rake is higher in 6max than FR is bull****. The rake is exactly the same. Sure, you are raking more bb/100 in 6max than FR, but at the same time you're also capable of making more money bb/100 in 6max then FR, because you have to defend/steal blinds more often, which invovles 3betting-spots preflop, aswell as more postflop play where you can outplay the bad regs, who mostly seem to be super bad postflop.

Conclusion:

If you're a skilled pokerplayer both preflop and postflop, then 6max will always be more profitable bb/100-wise than Full-ring. At least IMHO!

Rapidesh, what are your thoughts, or any other thougts, on the difference (which is is more profitable/softer) between NL 10-50 ZOOM 6max vs Fullring? Someone who have big samples on both.

panda,

lolwat.

the difference between rake for me was 2.3bb/100 favoring FR, so unless I could increase my WR by 2.3bb/100 it wouldnt make sense to play 6max.

Just by asking smthing Rapidesh you show ... well a lot

If you think you can beat regs by over a 2bb/100 winrate than you should move up instead of staying there to where the rake is lower. By continually applying your ideas you should reach the stakes high enough when playing 6-max becomes pretty much the only option. What's your point exactly?

Its easier to achieve a positive winrate at Zoom FR over Zoom 6m, but extremely difficult to have a big winrate. Its also more mechanical and less stressfull, so playing your A-game is easier.


6-max involve more stress cause of higher short term variance, so playing your A-game is tough when you aim for high volume. Once you master this, achieving a higher winrate is easier (not easy dough ) than FR.

zoom fr also gets more hands per hour. lower vpip -> more fast folding

So the conlcusion by this thread seems to be that;

Zoom Fullring: Easier to achieve a postive winrate

Zoom 6max: Harder to achieve a positive winrate, but if you master it, then its possible to achieve a higher winrate than fullring.

True

Also because FR is less stressfull to play due to the lower short term variance involved, its easier to aim for a higher volume of hands.

u can 8 table zoom fr as well, its pretty difficult to do at 6max. that extra volume adds a decent margin

To bad 100nl Zoom FR, and Rush FR (all tables) is dying out. I hope US will come back and fill up the tables again =)

I think this may be two different questions. Others may disagree.

6max vs 9 max - I like 6 max more because you have fewer multiway pots. It makes it easier to play postflop if you only have one person to beat and allows you to use a wider array of weapons, several of which become trickier to use when you need to get past multiple opponents. If you aren't as skilled at the bluff, this may not apply to you.

Zoom vs non-zoom - I like zoom better because you can play a lot more hands and really work on spots that can cause you problems. All the people who can't play AK from UTG, you'll get good at it if you play zoom. You won't get the whales that you might in a non-zoom game, but my attitude is that the point of playing the micros is to get good enough to play against better opponents. Zoom is far better for that.

Good point. I also think zoom is better to improve.