This just something i have been wondering about. At high stakes most tables that are populated are 6max tables. This makes me think that the best regs are going to be SH players rather than FR players. If you want to win at these stakes you are kinda forced to be very good SH.
SH obviously i feel has several advantages, you play more hands in more marginal situations which means as a player you improve a lot quicker i feel, especially postflop. Also you generate a lot more rake and therefore a lot more rakeback in the same time period. Obviously also mistakes are a lot more obvious, eg open limping, and a lot easier to punish.
Again FR has some of its own. The variance is much lower the spots are less marginal, its fairly obvious someone raising UTG is gonna have your AJ more or less crushed every time. Also focus required is less.
I used to play a lot of NL25 FR and since my year at uni had quite a bit of time off it and am now playing NL10 SH. I was winning player at NL25 about 3BB/100 over 20k hands. And now im about breakeven maybe a little plus at NL10Sh because at FR i never really had to work on my postflop game too much.
Does this mean that FR is full of much weaker players even at the same limit? Would it maybe be recommended to learn to the stage where you are crushing the limit below at SH then move up to the limit above FR?
Anyone can give me why they play what they play and why? Also whether they feel their game is softer than the other would be nice.
