Ok, assuming you are correct.

In such case where most players' VPIP remains the same, average pot size will probably be slightly smaller in 6-handed vs 9-handed.

If VPIP remains the same, then number of hands dealt should be significantly higher given 3 fewer seats are dealt.

It's probably safe to assume there will be 20% to 30% increase in number of hands dealt.

Question is then: if rake structure remains the same, can shorter game actually be beatable?

Assuming 30 hands per hour is dealt in 9-handed FR, 20% increase would put it at 36 hands per hour.

If max rake is $4 per hand and average pots are smaller by 20%, that 4th dollar is probably going to be dropped at a significantly lower rate.

4 x 30 = $120.

3 x 36 = $108.

3.2 x 36 = $115.

In 9-handed structure, each player's share of the rake per hour is $13.33.

In 6-handed structure, each player's share is $18 or even $19.16.

That's a very significant jump in rake, and this is without consideration of the possibility that casinos may want to increase rake to try to make up for fewer tables and additional cost relating to COVID.

The problem isn't that they aren't adjusting from full ring to 6 max, it's that the mistakes they already have been making by not playing the Button and correcting their blinds properly are maximized. All the same, the mistake of being loose is smaller.

If you are a profitable player then you will also be winning more money per hour. As long as you adjust to the game you should remain profitable.

It will be adjusting that is a problem. I suspect there is going to be some real weirdness because the player pool is probably also warped by the situation. It will probably be short of casual players and weekend guys, so it will be short of middle of the road players. The game will be heavy with the best and worst players.

I'm trying to figure out if increase in blinds per hour has an effect on this or not?

For example, at my 1/3NL 10 handed table I get about 30 hands per hour, which means 3 full orbits paying a total of $12 in blinds where I can be pretty patient.

But, for example, at a 5 handed table I might get upwards of 40 hands per hour, which is 8 full orbits paying a total of $32 in blinds.

So a massive increase in paying blinds. *However*, unlike rake, it isn't as if blinds are a 100% sunk cost (as they're still part of the pot and available to be won). Just not sure if there is a concern here or not...

GcluelesscostofblindsnoobG

It is a problem but on paper it should balance out.

You are paying more in blinds and while the blinds are not 100% sunk cost they are still -EV. You also get more shots at being in LP and you need to win more in LP just to balance the extra you are being blinded off. If you are a +EV player this should happen automatically as long as you are not real tight.

Optimal play will require retooling your bluff opening range but that you need to adjust on the fly anyways depending on the situation.

Blinds are zero sum so it doesn't matter if you're paying them more often. They are not a cost of playing.

Blinds are less -EV short because it's less likely someone has a hand that can raise, and when they do it's a wider range on average (because tight EP ranges are gone) meaning you can profitably defend wider on average.

Well, if it's just strictly EV in different positions, it can be solved assuming your win rate is exactly the same. In most arguments such as the one from QuadJ, it seems that you can simply make adjustments to maintain your EV in each position.

Assuming that is indeed the case, then here the simple model to solve what you're asking:

Keep in mind that these are basic examples with assumption that further you are from the blinds, more profitable you are.

SB: -0.5bb
BB: -1.0bb
UTG: -0.3bb
+1: -0.1bb
MP1: +0.1bb
MP2: +0.3bb
HJ: +0.7bb
CO: +1.5bb
B: +2.0bb

Assuming a winning player is close to push-even or slightly profitable in middle positions, then eliminating those opportunities could potentially be harmful to your WR, especially considering the HJ position.

So if MP1, MP2, and HJ combined to be > 0.0bb, then you would need to either lose less money in blinds, or make more money in LP to make up for the difference.

------

With that said, I still want to point out that this is assuming there are no other external factor affecting your EV.

In the case of shrinking table from 10-hands to 6-hands while keeping the rake structure the same, you will also be paying more in rake.

A simple illustration is that whatever % of hands you win in the long run, whether is 10% or 7%, you can easily assign a value to the amount of rake you pay per hand.

Say you win 10% of all the hands dealt after 30,000 hands and you pay an average of 3bb over those 3,000 hands won, the total rake you pay in those 30,000 hands is:

30000 x 10% x 3bb = 9,000bb.

And average rake per hand is:

9000bb / 30000 = 0.3bb per hand dealt.

So if you play 30 hands per hour, you would be paying 9bb/hr in rake.

Now if you are playing 40 hands per hour, you would be paying 12bb/hr in rake.

As you can see, you can argue all you want on the % of hands you win and the amount of rake you pay, nevertheless, if you change any of these variables to fit your own perception, the formula still holds true that more hands you play, more rake you will pay.

Here is another example where you win 6% of all hands dealt and you only lose 2bb to rake in those hands you won.

x number of hands * 6% x 2bb = 0.12xbb

Or we can plug in actual numbers to make it easier to comprehend:

1,000 hands * 6% x 2bb = 120bb

120bb / 1000 = .12bb per hand.

30 hands per hour x .12bb = 3.6bb

40 hands per hour x .12bb = 4.8bb

4.8 - 3.6 = 1.2bb.

All else equal with more hands played, you are paying an additional 1.2bb per hour.

If you are losing money in any position other than the blinds you have big preflop leaks.

Obviously the more hands/h the more rake you pay. A winning player would win more money though. Only Rake/hand matters, not rake/hour.

If that were true, then playing 4 fewer hands would have even bigger impact.

You would have to both win more in the 4 hands out of blinds and lose less in the 2 hands in the blinds to make up for the 4 missing hands.

Rake/hand and rake/hour are the same thing, ldo. So if rake/hr doesn't matter, neither does rake/hand.

Rake/hr is simply used as a unit to illustrate a point within the context of win rate, which is normally defined in live setting by $/hr.

Another concern I would have regarding rake is how often pots get big enough to help reduce the effect of it at a 10 handed table versus a 5 handed table. The pot size preflop (as well as the number of players invovled) is often a huge indicator of the eventual size of the pot. 7way limped pots are far more likely to create huge pots than 3way limped pots; as are 5way raised pots versus HU raised pots. A $8 maximum rake ain't gonna be felt as much in a $500 pot as it will be in a $80 pot. Another huge drawback in rooms (such as mine) that don't rake pots that are taken down preflop is the difference in dead money (again compare 3betting a raise + 3 calls versus a single raise and no calls).

I kinda think poker coming back in my market is quite a ways off, but I definitely have concerns if it comes back in some weird zombified shorthanded / masks / dividers / increased rake version. The biggest fear I would have is whether the people I want to play with actually want to play in this terrible-vibes game (myself included).

GcluelessconcernednoobG

Yes, but... Winrate per hour is obviously at some level a function of hands per hour. All else being equal (and of course it isn't) your rake/hr going up should be offset by your hands per hour going up and thus your winrate.

Another fear I would have is does reducing the number of seats have a side affect of accidentally making poor players play better in that they are not nearly as often in a pot OOP? One of the biggest mistakes poor players make at a 10 handed table is being involved in lottsa hands in EP; but you eliminate all those seats, and all of a sudden you eliminate that mistake. At a full table, poor players are OOP a hugenormous percentage of hands they play, whereas at a shorthanded table that number is going to be reduced drastically.

Of course, I'm sure poor players will also be making lottsa mistakes in a shorthanded game too / not adjusting correctly / et.. But it's just not all *whoop, shorthanded, let's print 5x monies as before*, imo.

GcluelessingeneralnoobG

Correct, but that’s considering all other things equal.

Rake will remain the same in this new structure, but the gameplay won’t.

As I had illustrated above, eliminating 3 or 4 hands in MP and HJ will likely create lower WR.

So if you are someone who relies on those 3/4 hands to pad your WR, then you might not actually be able to win more.

Nevertheless, this rake structure would also create the situation of raking the player pool faster and hurting the losing players even more.

Losing players would be dealt more hands, play fewer hands in positions, and subsequently getting raked faster. All that assuming no one is adjusting.

Basically in this structure, winning players think they can win more and pay rake at a faster rate.

On the flip side, losing players will lose faster both to winning players and rake.

In a 6-handed structure, how long do you think before losing players will realize that they are getting crushed?

This is certainly another possibility.

Plus nothing makes casinos happier, player pool neutralizing itself and play more hands.

And perhaps even more importantly: is this a fun environment for them to get crushed in?

Might be even more important than ever for the number one strategy adjustment being keeping people happy.

Gzeroshorthandedexperience,andfairlyapprehensiveof thefutureofmygameG

For the nits, this is a huge problem. And they hate playing short-handed anyway, so they are unlikely to come back, and unlikely to stay long if they do.

For the action-junkies, as in PLO, the fact that shorthanded NL is so high variance may well get many of them to think they're playing well and running bad. If they run really bad at the beginning though, they are likely to blame it on the format and quit. Of course, I keep expecting that to happen with the terribad PLO players, but so far it hasn't, at least in my market.

Short-handed should be higher variance but it’s unclear that it would be the case in practice. The main reason they would be higher variance is that positions where you play tight have been cut out, so you’re now playing wider ranges on average. However this obviously doesn’t matter to the positionally unaware players who VPIP 40% whether they are UTG or BU. In very low skill level games like casino 1/2 you tend get smaller pots on average because fewer players are vpipping. Variance might be less in short handed games, at least at 1/2.

The opposite is true actually. The positions that are cutting out are MP, ones where there are more players OOP against you.

In these spots, players play looser, not tighter.

Whether they're consciously aware of it or not, playing OOP will lose more money than playing IP.

And yes, that does matter because results matter.

Not sure where you are going with these points though.

You're creating straw man. The subject in Garrick's example are PLO junkies, or action junkies in general. These people will VPIP at a high rate, and short-handed game might induce their VPIP to be even higher.

Another scenario this creates is that casino may be left with mostly action junkies, because nits and tight players crash out.

Result is basically higher average rake and more money getting removed from the player pool. PLO has a unique way of balancing that just by the nature of the game itself and slower pace of the game.

Imagine a PLO game where it plays much faster and winning players have huge edge over losing players. Players will crash out of the game pretty darn quickly.

My winrate is significantly higher since 6-max. Almost double what it was before. Rake hasn't been an issue in the NH rooms.

We are getting to see more hands/hr and on top of that people are making mistakes in big pots alot more. I'll miss 6-max.

Exactly, the pace of the game will be problematic in long term.

Losing players inadvertently want to slow down the game to extend their playing time.

Bigger player pools will be fine, medium and small player pools may take a hit as result of these changes.

Good players will win faster and bad players will lose faster in short handed play. It's a more fun format for live low stakes, because you get HU more often, meaning you can make more moves.

Is it more fun for the losing player though? If they're constantly getting into HU situations OOP to the best player at the table and losing money more quickly, I could see them as thinking they're being picked on / targeted and becoming more frustrated with this type of game.

Glongtermprognosisintheseconditionsisextremelymeh, imoG