how to compare games of vastly different speed?

Specifically, if I have to choose between the following games, which should I play?

A) 2-deck pitch, 1.5+/2 pen., S17, no DAS, the table is full (6-spot table) but I can play two spots. The game is exceedingly slow, as most of the hacks playing it are unfamiliar with holding the cards.

B) 6-deck shoe, 5.5/6 pen. S17, DAS, I'm playing heads-up or with, at most, one other person. I can play
exceptionally fast at this game, at a rate of perhaps 300 hands an hour.

So, is it better to play 300 hands an hour at the 6-decker, or to play 50-60 rounds an hour at the 2-decker. On paper, they're both fantastic games, though the 2-deck is clearly superior. However, how does one factor in this significant difference in hands per hour?

5.5 /6 ! This is the situation where sims fail. You can play bigger stakes with less cover at the 6D. The counter catchers will be watching the double deck because that's where most of the inexperienced counters will be. You'll not only get more hands per hour, but you can play longer sessions gernerally at six deck. Counters sitting at crowded double decks like this will be playing for the same stakes 10 years from now.

You can also play the 6D in close proximity to the 2D. A couple of times during the day you may see the chance to get heads up at the 2D. When that opportunity presents itself, if you don't have a good count, move to the double deck and play until a couple of others join the table. Then go back to your six deck.

If you are a quarter player ask for a quarter table at 6D. At lots of places this will give you heads up the entire day.

While I am normally a big fan of pitch games (single or double deck), it is difficult to win any game with a full table, especially if the other players are slow.

So, I find myself agreeing with DD'.

Which does not surprise me in the least. :-)

I saw a dealer BOTH dealing and paying extremely fast! We were 3 players(spots) on the table,6 deck,pen 66%,shuffle didn't eat much time.
How much rounds do you think we played in an hour, under these conditions? Did we get 200 rounds?

The dealer was one of the fastest you can imagine!

Was the 6 deck game actually 5.5/6 pen or did you really mean the more typical 4.5/6?

I doubt finding a 5.5/6 game other than maybe for a short time by mistake by a newbie dealer until corrected. Also suspicious is that a place would cut a half deck (25%) off of one game, but only cut 8.3% off another game.

A 5.5/6 game is exceptional, and I believe it would quickly get crowded w/ counters recognizing the game conditions and be burnt out.

Problem with 6 decks is that you only get an advantage about 30% of the time. So you sit through 2-3 shuffles betting minimum before you finally get one that turns your way and then you put out these monster bets to get an advantage. I played 2 1/2 shoes last week, lot of head to head, and finally left without ever getting a positive count and no hope on that 3rd shoe. That's where I see the fallacy of Anderson's book. He talks about playing mainly 6 deck like he's cleaning up all the time but can be long stretches with poor counts which he doesn't mention much.

is what allows you to get in many hours of play. That's good. When you get good counts right away the pit sees immediate big bet variation and you won't be able to play long sessions. It is rather difficult to win huge sums of money at handheld games because you are frequently making big bets and will get heat sooner. At shoes you sit for long periods and then get the hot shoe. There may be fallacies in Anderson's book. But playing shoe games is not one of them. The vast majority of high stakes pro players play mostly shoe games.

In this situation we are talking about a 5.5/6 shoe. If you're not getting big counts here then you're losing the count.

Compare SCORE's and DI's of play-all pitch, play-all shoes, and wonging shoes. Pitch & wonging shoes are usually very close, while play-all shoes lags far behind. Generally shoes can be played for higher stakes w/ less heat than pitch. By wonging, you don't need as large of bet spread as play-all shoes, which doesn't draw as much heat.

If you play as high of stakes as Ian, your every move will be watched no matter how you play, thus his need for more cover. Basically his theory is to give up a lot of EV in exchange for longevity, while other high stakes pros believe in the slash and burn type play. It's simply a matter of opinion which is better... a small return for a long time or a high return for a short time? Also, Ian attempts to make a lot of his EV through comps and not just at the tables. He gets multiple air reimbursements at inflated prices, sells comps he doesn't need to other people, etc.