Which to play: full ring or shorthanded?

[Self Made]

[black_knight6]

[Self Made]

[Jossnaz]

where are you from?
on which site do you play?
What stakes do you play?

it differs a lot from site to site. I've been playing a bit of FR at party and did data mining like 2 hours before sitting down - was horrible to find out that players who did stay long enough were all tight (20%vpip) players (At 10$ NL!!! though before the reload bonus).

personally my thoughts are:
fishes are persons who normally play one or two tables. They want to get full action there.
So I'd stick to short handed tables because if you had 50 $ and wanted to play poker for fun you'd not choose a full ring table.
On the other hand as a newbie you can play very tight on fullring tables without doing a big mistake. You'll normally get your money by playing only super premium hands because enough peoples will get involved with you.

[Dumb Snowman]

[phytopath]

[Self Made]

[Self Made]

[Dumb Snowman]

Yep. FR games at 100nl and higher are ridiculously dry. While the 6max games are still pretty easy up to 200nl, and still beatable above that.

[phytopath]

I think that SH games are more profitable because you can play more hands against bad players, and you can manage to get better reads on them.

The number of tables becomes a problem too, it is way easier to pay attention to 4 short handed tables than to keep track of 7 full tables to get the same number of hands.

At the low stakes, and then not even on all sites the games NL50 and under may be more profitable at Full ring.

The reason I suggest short games is because that's what the action junkies play, they don't want to sit there with 7 nits folding all but the top 15% of hands.

[T-Rod]