In NL we get 2 cards, I’ve always thought of this as making our equity much ‘sharper’ and more concentrated: so we generally don’t connect with the board very often, and our EQ is more rhobust when we do compared to other variants. Pre flop ranges are tight, range vs range dynamics are what the game is about because we never hit the damn board.

Even when playing short handed NL online (3-5 plyrs, fast paced) we still aren’t connecting with the board very often. I know this is relative but I’m sure you know what I mean. If you have played PLO, Mix, stud etc. before then going back to NL is like watching paint dry in slow motion

In a full ring game there is an EPIC amount of waiting involved, esp live. To the point where live NL grinders are notorious for watching movies on their iPhones or iPads. Yes this is table-opponent-dynamics dependent, but IMO this is ridiculous, it is an inherently flawed game that we all accept bcz the casinos want to max the ratio of dealers to players. If only some creative casino owner was willing to pay for more dealers, and create six max tables: that room would have all the action in town. IMO Full ring NL is a broken game, and I wish I could snap my fingers and make this a 6-Max world. If live no limit we’re more exciting more recs would play, and the ecosystem would be envigorated. If your a standard pit-game weekend gambler do you really want to go upstairs and play full ring NL when you could be throwing dice!? 6MAX would attract so many degenz: food for thought

When was the last time I heard in a card room, "Thank god we're down to six players."? I'm going to go with - never.

The pros who have made tons of cash playing ring game NLH may disagree.

And remember, many of the weakest players only play ring games.

However, everyone can have their own criteria.
____

Side Note That You May Like:

Vegas did not have a steady NLH game for over 15 years because one bad player will have hard time winning for a weak playing with regs. Stud-type games and LH were what we had. Every room had low limit stud.

Many sharp people thought of Vegas NLH as mostly a dead game that would never make a comeback; not counting when major tournaments came to town. Not enough luck to skill in NLH to make the game extremely popular was the sharp opinion at the time.

Then came the hole card camera and boom! We had a NLH boom as millions of players with no real experience showed up; poker on TV never caught on before that for obvious reasons.

Online, initially, LH was the game but that changed and then Party Poker started running TV adds; everyone was advertising; affiliate programs; etc.

That has to do with the rake structure rather than the inherent nature of the game.

The amount of hours live-pros are forced to invest in order to see any volume is brutal. It would be great if casinos ran 6MX and FR

There's a dichotomy for the provider of the game.
Should they make it 6-max so it's less boring for everyone, if it means the weakest players might go busto more quickly?

I pity the regs that play a big slate of tourneys at the WSOP. Some of those are 10-handed with 300bb stacks at the start. As far as I can tell (from twitter), no professional likes playing those games, where you just have to fold all the time.
Maybe it's the case that the casual players like the fact that the slow pace of full ring means their "entertainment dollars" last a whole day or more. 6-max would put them under a bit more pressure.
I'm sure the casinos have surveyed their customers to ask them what they actually want. Haven't they?

I've only played live a handful of times but I do love when it get's down to 6 players and I can play closer to what I think is "real" poker tbh.

Is this a troll? Because I really doubt it.

You say that because you have only played live a handful of times. If you play more you will notice the rake. Next time you lose more than 3 players at a table ask for reduced rake. I think most good players will bust the table before they play short-handed at full rake.

I'd much rather play 6-max than 9-max. 9-max forces me to be a nit (relative to everyone else). Fish play loose regardless of the format because they are not positionally aware. For some reason they want as many players at a table as possible and many won't even play 6-handed.

I think a change in Hold'em which incentivizes looser pre-flop play and more flops seen would be positive. Not sure what would "fix" it, though.

In live PLO, I am a preflop nit who probably doesn't break 20% VPIP. Stud is a game that usually favors tightness on third street unless the antes are large. I might actually play more hands in NL.

Is NL an inherently flawed variant or are you an inherently flawed player who needs opponents to gift you chips for you to be a winner.

What is so bad about playing tight?

4max is the purest form of NL holdem.

6max live. That would be awesome. I picture profits unimaginable vs casual gamblers. That’s probably why it wouldn’t work for a casino. The 6max tables would have 5 players that know the advantages of 6max and a rotating seat of the poor fish that don’t know what they got in to.

Eventually the fish would probably figure out not to play 6max. Doesn’t seem like a win for the casino when you really think about it.

10/9max tables produce action where 5 players call preflop to 6 and 7x BB raises. That’s what benefits the casino.

you guys are probably right, people like the relaxed community feeling of 9 handed NL. if casinos offered both that would be amazing, even if they charged higher rake for 6mx. its brutal that live pros are forced to play tons of hours to see any considerable volume. i just cant help but wonder if we should second guess a game type where it is customary to watch movies while you play because the intervals between action hands are so long. i think a lot of recs find full-ring boring. the recs look bored out of their minds at quiet tables with no conversation

Most big losing players who play casino poker prefer fuller tables.

Often as the table gets bellow six players the worst players sit out; quit; ask about other games, etc.

Vegas used to play 11 handed and then after much discussion we went to 10 handed and then after many years we went to 9 handed.

Casinos love seeing the rare two six handed games going at the same time but mostly the losing players prefer fuller tables.

No it isn’t flawed. There is a theoretically correct play in all situations is the best way I can put it. This is especially true if you are heads up. In NL you typically have a lot of leverage and can offer your opponent any odds you’d like. Not so much in limit.