Large or small tables?

I hate playing at a small or a short-handed table - it all feels so random, so out of control, so much more a gamble. In fixed-limit games, in brick-and-mortar casinos, there seems to be no debate - no one likes short-handed games. Players will consolidate tables without a second thought, even when it means one of them going on the list for hours since everyone left plans to see dawn. In no-limit, though, it's very different: I constantly hear people complain as a table fills up, how much they prefer smaller tables, more so than the people who say the opposite. (These are, incidentally, the people who say things like "you can't bluff in limit," and play 30-50% of hands even at full cash tables.) When I started playing Bovada, I found people gravitating overwhelmingly toward the six-player tables, even in fixed-limit games. Why is this? It seems to me that the larger a table is, the less luck is a factor - is it that these are the kind of people who want to rely largely on luck? It just seems if you're confident in your skill, you shouldn't prefer the rollercoaster of shorthanded cash games, but these people, who mostly play loose-aggressive (as most NL-only players seem to) but not badly, do...

If you're opening hands like K7s as "lagtards" may do, where would you rather be playing? A 9-handed table, so you can more easily run into a better king? To play full-ring NL cash well, you usually have to fold preflop a LOT. Young kids that used to play on the internet with a minimum of 10 tables get too bored for that. Good LAGs play postflop very well, so 6 max is better for them since more frequent blind posting drives action.