Definitely in favor of this, both for comfort and for game considerations, especially in timed games where players take fewer long breaks from the table.

Your right the difference between 9 or 10 when the table is full is not much.
But with a 9 max. your chances of playing short increases.
Playing short in theory should create more action this is why the rocks hate it.
This would make them adapt to the table which most can not.

Playing short is NOT something that many recreational players are willing to do. Most of them are not laden with testosterone, out to prove that they can beat the short-handed games. Yes - you are correct, they have no idea how to adapt and, quite frankly they do not want to adapt. They want to play recreational poker.

As a poker player, why would you want to play in difficult games? Put your ego in check and think of what is good for the game. We should be doing everything we can to encourage the recreational player.

Who are the first ones to leave when a game gets short? The recreational player. They are not comfortable, playing against the sharks who will feast on them. They came to gamb00l and have a good time, not prove that they are a master of shorthanded games.

They are my bread and butter at the table. Not the aggro, poker-star wanna-be's,who have something to prove. It's not about bravado folks.

I'm reminded of the story about the older bull and the young bull, standing atop the hillside, looking down at the pasture full of calves. The young one says, "Let's charge down the hill and **** one of those cows!". The wise, old bull says, "Son, why don't we just walk down slowly and calmly and **** them all."

who was the rocket scientist who spec'ed out the tables that PARX is now considering 9 handed instead of just acknowledging they eff up and ok'ed a table without testing it. seems to me if you plan on 10x 60 sitting for hours the least you can do is buy one and play at it full for a 8 hour session then decide
common sense isnt always common great room accept for cramped tables

Ari,
Any chance you can arrange for the bar to sell snacks (ex. Candy, nuts, etc.) During a long session, some might enjoy the option, beyond a sandwich.

Went to Parx last Thursday for the first time. 2/5 game was good, dealers and floor were very good, and waitress outfits are very +ev for me, as I was the only one not staring, lol. Table size didn't bother me, maybe we had skinny people with good hygiene at my table, idk.
Still love the borgata most, but will be cheating on it every chance I get with the younger, sexier parx.

Nine would definitely be more comfortable without compromising the quality of the game. Right now it's pretty tight at the tables, especially if a couple of plus size guys are sitting.

I actually enjoy playing 6 handed, but that won't be practical given the waiting lists that occur.

Thanks for asking!

When the the room does get expanded , I don't think that the recreational players will even know the difference between the 9 or 10 handed tables. I really believe that parx going to 9 handed is doing the regs a favor if anything. I'm a tall person and I can not seat any where at the tables besides the 1 or 10 seat due to feeling crammed in. But someone does have a point that at the 1/2 tables it is short handed must of the game with about 2 empty seats due to smoke breaks or bathroom breaks.

I favor 9 handed or just let me seat next to the dealer. Lol

From my experience, this is all totally false. A game changes from loose to tight when it gets short?? No way...usually people open way up. Short games are more prone to raise and take it and blind chops?? If anything, in a short game people defend MORE often and many players won't chop at all if there are 6 or 5 or fewer players. I'd say fairly confidently that short games have fewer raise-and-take-it's and fewer chops.

It's true that very short games are more break prone, but I can't see that being a big issue at a 9-handed table. And once the expansion happens, I think there's a good chance we'll have must-move games, which will keep games alive.

So far it looks like the majority of players want nine handed games, I think that is the route we are headed. I will confirm within the next week, please pull me aside in the room if you have any questions.

Thank you

Ari

No disrespect, but where do you play poker?

I have been playing in AC, CA and LV for.. well, let's just say longer than I care to remember.

It is rare, very rare - when a game of recreational players will "open up",when it gets short handed. Even in thew wild & wooly CA games, when they get down to 6-7 players for an extended period, the game gets very tight and slow. The gamb00lers do not play many hands,because there is no money in the middle.

Then, the better players recognize this and start raising light. Invariably, this causes the recreational player to feel even more uncomfortable. One by one they leave and before you know it, broken game!

Saying that raise & take it is LESS prone in short games is largely wrong. It may be that way in the type/limit/room that you are used to playing, but it kills a game with recreational players. Which is the entire point.

I think you, along with other folks sharing this opinion, are reflecting upon games where the bulk of the field is comprised of "regulars". Not necessarily good players, but those who know enough. If you have ever played in games comprised largely of recreational players, you would know better. They get short, they break.

Please don't confuse a table of regular players with one containing primarily recreational ones. They almost two polar opposites. And, if you'd rather "grind it out" short handed with the reg's - go for it. Smarter thinking would put you at a table full of happy, recreational players - giving their money away and having a good time.

Also, the expansion will contribute nothing whatsoever to this effect. This short game effect happens every day, in some of the largest card rooms in the world - Borgata, Commerce, Venetian, Foxwoods, etc. They all have multiple games at any given limit. If you start with 9 and get 2 walkers... the game will break more often than not. If it doesn't break - it will suck.

The only way that I would agree to 9 handed tables (like I get a vote), would be if Parx instills a "3rd man walking" rule and they are capable of enforcing it consistently. Even that won't help much, but it's a compromise.

I cannot emphasize enough about how much recreational players HATE playing short handed with the wanna be's. They don't care how cool it might be, to beat a short, or how to adapt/change their style. they have only one style - donating. And, they will not do that, if they are NOT having a good time.

He plays at Parx, and AC.

I think you're both saying the same thing, anyway. "Better" players get looser and more aggressive when it gets short handed, and the average pot size is usually bigger (or at least comparable, even with half as many players). When our 15 game gets short, it's not uncommon for 80% of the table to see the flop for 3 or more bets.

"Recreational" players, on the other hand, do tighten up (because of the aggression), and they get uncomfortable and leave as a result.

Whether "raise and take it" is more or less prevalent in a short game is largely a function of the ratio of regulars to recreational players in the game at the time.

You would rather play a lower limit that has more recreational players. He would rather play a higher limit, regardless of the number of regulars (because many of them aren't as good as they think they are). To each his own.

As to the issue of tables breaking - if there ends up being a must move, I think that obviously will have a beneficial effect of keeping games from breaking when they get short... because only one table in each game can ever get short. Whether or not it drives rec players to some other game or out of the room is another issue, though.

No Ari,
THANK YOU

That is precisely why I don't sit in your 15 game.

Why would anyone want to play in a short, aggressive, high-variance game with better than average players?????

Give me the 8-16 (or even the 4-8) full of idiots, any day

I'm hoping the expansion will create multiple tables of 15, where it will be easier to make money.

Why don't people get that?!?!?!?!

Sorry, I edited again after you quoted. I think I get you completely. I hope you can acknowledge that there is more than one way to skin a cat, though.

Ari,

Do you know of any direct transportation from Philadelphia to PARX casino? I've heard that there are buses that run directly from Chinatown, but I can't seem to find anything about it on the web.

It is possible to take SEPTA from downtown Philly to PARX, but it's a long and involved process with multiple transfers.

Thanks,
Waxie

Personally I prefer 10 handed, but I don't care if it's 10, 9, 8, 7, or 6 handed. Just make it physically comfortable and dump those wide bottomed chairs.

This has to be some kind of all-time record for responding to customer input with action. Seems like there's an idea brought up here, discussed for a week and then implemented. Love it. Thanks Ari!

I do not think this lowers win rate or EV at all. If anything it is going to boost mine. I can not stand smacking the bottom of my chair off the person next to me when I try and get up. There is nothing more annoying...I weight 170 pounds soaking wet and these tables are way too crowded.

I'm in the same boat until I get may car back. Septa bus numbers 20, 50, 130, and 150 all got to Parx. Check out Septas site: Septa.org for schedule info.

Amen

I don't mind 9. My vote is to keep it the current 10 for reasons IFSATG and others have stated several times. Eventually we can slowly phase out current 9 tops to the larger more comfortable ten tops? Doing this would ease the pain financially of having to buy the whole room at once.

Maybe 5 tables at a time monthly? Maybe each month have a $10 raffle or something for each of the 5 tables? Offset some cost that way? Or just sell em out right,auction style maybe? I'm sure allot of people would be interested in having a real poker table at there house.

After all, I really don't think the situation is unbearable by any means. It's not like people can't speak up and ask to shuffle seats around closer to dealer. There is ample space at the corners to do so imo.

Hmmm... I know I posted that I understand your perspective. Our mods must have been feeling their oats and sense of power today, as my reply was deleted.

I went back to edit and include this (hopefully this post sticks):

I don't think stakes much matter for this phenomenon. At least as far as I am concerned. I play as high as 30-60. It's all about the player composition. I choose the best game, which often times, is not the biggest game in the room.

Take the Bellagio 15 game (and also the 30 game). The dynamics around them are quite interesting. You tend to see them balance out into two separate and distinct flavors. Those containing mostly tourists and those containing mostly regulars. Of course, the regulars climb all over themselves to get in the aquarium.

Then, as all games tend to do, they lose a player or 2. Then the aggro-regs get real aggressive and try to run over the table. What happens? The game breaks. Why? Because the tourists want to have fun - not get run over.

At Parx, I see the 15 game full of the same faces everyday. If/when that game attracts more recreational players (and it will, eventually), the game will be (IMO) good. Right now, it can be a very risky game to sit in. It's often short for periods of time and it doesn't play "soft". Making that game max out at 9, will just increase the percentage of time that it could be overly short.

In any event - I'm sure we will all adapt to whatever number of seats there are in any given game. If we can keep the game full at 9, it will be less intimidating for the recreational player.

Would everyone be willing to accept a "3rd man walking" rule, if the tables become 9-player seating?

My vote would be 9 handed

Define 3mw please?

this is so wrong it blows my mind how you can't see it. you will have the same exact percent of recreational players per table on average if it's 10 handed or 9 handed. say there are 30% winning poker players and 70% losing (i'm making this number up). each empty seat has a 70% chance of being a losing player whether it's 9 or 10...do you think that the 10th seat is reserved for a fish? the 10th seat has the same probability of a good or bad player.

if you happen to sit at a 9 handed table with a recreational player, you will be able to play >10% more hands with him/her...this will make a HUGE difference in your winrate.

As an extreme example, say in situation A you are the best player in the world, there are 8 2nd best players in the world and one recreational player vs situation B where you are heads up with the recreational player. Can't you see that situation B is better for you?

anyway, like I said, difference between 9 and 10 is going to be somewhat small but comfort-wise it will be a huge difference to be able to lean and spread out and not bang into other players.

also to people saying that games break...in my experience it rarely breaks until it gets to like 5 handed if people still have stacks on the table and are probably returning. the most I see is people shouting "seat open" or something.

I also think that 9 handed will make the casino more money so it's to their advantage to do so anyway.

I disagree with this statement. First of all, there are many, many regulars at Bellagio who are not the best players in the world. Of course, there are a few really good regulars too... but there are also normally a few really good tourists as well. Anyway, I rarely see the regulars switch tables unless they are moving to different stakes. I'm not saying they never switch tables, I'm just saying it's pretty rare that I see it. (There was one Asian guy who used to switch tables every 20 minutes regardless of which table had the tougher lineup, but he switched to no limit a year or 2 ago.)

Also, Bellagio has a great must-move policy in that new tables are only a must-move for 1 hour, as opposed to being a must move for the life of the game, which I believe they do at Borgata. A couple years ago at Borgata I got into a ridiculous situation with 2 must move tables daisy chaining into a main game :-(

This means that at Bellagio, the first hour the new table often has more bad players then the others, but after that, they even out. This is because in a must move situation that lasts longer then an hour, the main games have the players who survived long enough to get must moved. Presumably, these are the better players. Of course, you can have some bad players who got lucky or who have a lot of money to lose, but in general, the main table in a must move situation is a tougher table. After the first hour at Bellagio, new players go to the first empty seat, whether it's the main game or the newer table. So, you end up with a mix of players at both tables rather than having all the good players at the main table.

By the way, I haven't seen a must move table yet at Parx, but I suspect there will be some after the expansion. I hope must moves are only for an hour instead of forever...