I play a fair amount of limit 6-max and in the SB (as well as UTG) I pretty much follow a full ring strategy. Speaking for myself, I have found that trying to find the correct amount of added aggression in those two positions isn't worth the trouble. Your position is so bad that marginal hands don't make sense to me. Your mileage may vary.

Tib-

Hoo boy. Well its unfortunate, but the answer is the usual 'it depends'. It really does though, because in SH, you are alot more apt to run into players that defend thier BBs than in Ring. Thats because anyone playing SH knows that you need to know how to play your blinds, and also because in ring, theres kindof the thought that with all those cards out there, what looks like a steal raise could actually be a legitimate hand, so oftentimes people are less inclined to defend- but in SH sometimes you run into people that are pretty damn good at defending thier blinds, and against someone thats going to pop you on the turn with a seven high, you dont generally come after his blinds unless you have a hand thats worth raising in the first place. Against a weak player, you can come after them with almost any 2, so long as you dont do it time after time after time, and cause him to take a stand. All told though, all i can really say is that im 38% from the SB, and that includes a fair amount of completion with random crap when the pot is multiway limped. I play actually MORE from the SB than the BB (im only 35% from the BB). However, i dont beleive in defending my blinds all that viciously, because i figure im pretty good at stealing them, so theres no need (and piers will disagree with me on this one) to call a button raise with 28o. These stats are all from 10/20 though, where you dont see a hell of alot of 6 way action.

As an aside, i say you make the rules MINIMUM 5/10 friendly. Honestly guys, we are in this to because we think we are good. We are allegedly 'semi-pros' or at the very least, 'enthusiasts', or in some cases 'Jackasses' (who nonetheless fancy ourselves poker players) who are willing to put in more time and effort to improve our game than our adversaries. I dunno about you, but i think about hands at random times during the day, I get distracted by thoughts of a laydown i shouldve made, or a suspicious raise that i shouldve called. We sit here and we talk, we analyze, we think, we bitch, we whine, we rant, and we brag about all things poker. It is totally unconscionable for us to be dicking around at games like 1/2LHE or 2/4LHE, or hell anything less than 5/10, if youve got a decent dayjob, is really inexcusable IMHO.

Of course, this does not apply to people who do not have dayjobs, and who are trying to scratch up a bankroll with limited resources- in those cases good luck, gods speed, and its my sincerest wish that you succeed in battling your way up.

I guess what i mean to say is that the games we should be concentrating on are the ones that matter, namely the ones where a decent amount can be made. The micros play totally different than the mids- but the mids dont play THAT different from the highs (although they can) - and i guess ultimately i think that putting a whole bunch of work into coming up with autorates for .50/1.00 or 1/2 short handed is really a waste of time, and is kindof like learning to do all kinds of cool tricks on a bike with training wheels, when what you should be doing is concentrating on learning how to ride for real, which is a whole different story.

See, theres a rant for ya! Muhahaha!

PS- ill igve you my PT stats if you want, ive got about 40k hands at 6max tables- but im only a 1.5bb/100 winner...shhhh dont tell anyone!

oh yah.

I meant to mention... what i generally consider loose, tight, etc...

I always considered somewhere between 28 and 30% VP to be optimal for SH, so Id say b/w 25%-32% is tight, 32-39% is SL, 40-50 is loose, and 50+ is xtra loose/ridiculous. Anyone playing less than 25% is playing too few hands.

Aggressive, i always consider anyone under 1 to be weak and passive, 1-1.5 to slightly weak (1) to average (1.5) 1.5-2 to be avg(1.5) to slightly aggressive (2) and 2-2.5 to be Slightly aggressive to Aggressive (2.5), and anyhting beyond 2.6 to be ultra agressive (these are very rare)

15-18 or so % PFR i think is pretty optimal for a TA player shorthanded, so i would definitely say anyone raising 5% or less is Very passive, 5-10% is passive to average, 11-16% is avg to aggressive, 17%-25% can be either Ultra aggresive with maniacal possibilites as you near 25%, and anything over 25% PFR is probably manaical.

Lets see... I think that anyone that sees over 45% of showdowns would probabl be a showdown muppet, anyone between 40-45 is ...uhm...i dunno but he's probably seeim too many showdowns, if his longterm avg is over 40%. Optimal is probably somwhere around 36% Id say, and anything less than 30% the guy folds too much.

Win $ at showdown...I dunno about this stat... I think winning b/w 55-60% or so is pretty damn good, with 52-55 being not that bad. 50-52 isnt great, and under 50 is not so good.

Anyways, i dunno what all these mean but these are pretty much what i get from analyzing my own stats and lookin at other peoples stats. Hope this helps!

Haven't had a bunch of time to devote to the project---bachelor party this weekend (see the Anything Goes forum...) and wedding in 11 days. I will do work on these--but I wouldn't expect a finished product before mid-August.