I prob beat this horse to death, but I'd change the above to "some places"

Those places being small rooms in small markets, struggling rooms in large markets, or rooms that are for some reason trying to start niche games.

Top rooms could not only afford to lose those regs , it would benefit them. Skill levels would be more equal, thus less money would leave the ecosystem and stay in play to be raked. Same reason Baazov ran off the regs. He didnt care about poker or them and wanted to max profit.


p.s. I might be jumping the gun but I am equating "rake sensitive" players to regs. Vast majority of recs could care less about rake. Some do, and I would suspect rec players that read 2+2 do care. So we get skewed data here.

So what percentage of rooms fit that description? In absolute numbers, not total number of players or volume.

good point. 50%+ I'd guess. so yeah the rake sensative regs keep many rooms alive. but I'd argue many of those rooms just need to close and let the market consolidate into smaller number of healthy rooms vs larger number of struggling rooms.

Using Vegas as an example. Think about TI (Not sure if its even still open). they did promotion a while back that basically paid locals $10 / hour ( or some number cant rem) to play. Prob the worst promotion Ive ever heard of. They just lit money on fire.

Did that get some games going? yes. were they the worse games possible for recs? yes. should the room have stayed open? no.

So my point is again , if a room has to cater to regs to get mainstream games going they have larger problems than amount of rake they charge or if they run 8 9 or 10 handed.

The main reason I prefer 9-10 handed is for the mere fact that if there are long waiting lists and the tables have capacity to fit an extra player or 2 to accommodate waiting players, that would help lessen the wait times for players. Personally , I’m just an impatient person in general and I hate waiting very long for a seat when I’m eager to play especially if I’m on a limited schedule on how many hours I can play. If the poker room can immediately accommodate me a seat in an 8 handed table, I have no complaints about 8 handed poker. 8-10 handed play is very similar for me.

If you are a recreational player, then you should prefer the opposite of what is preferred by the earbud-hoodie-backpack pros who are antisocial and bad for the game.

a lot of them probably prefer 9 handed

Definitely a big overlap between OMC and hoody/glasses wearing, ipad staring live "pros".

My regular room is back to 9 handed. I'm surprised 8 handed seems to drive more rake revenue, however I am seeing 9 handed in vegas coming back, probably to put more butts in seats?

Recs definitely like 9 handed more. Whenever there's less than 8 players they start whining and asking the floor to send more players

Winrate will go up for more reasons than you just playing more hands/hr. Bad players will be losing more each hour due to more hands and good players won't be as handcuffed by being in as many multiway pots (also MW pots will be smaller). I think how you calculate rate is wrong as well but I don't want to get into it much as other players have discussed it already. A good way to judge if a table is good or not is if the pots are large...if they are usually small then it's not a good table...if they're hitting the cap every hand that means people are playing too loose and a good player's EV will be very high...in your model the table with lots of big pots and loose players will have lower EV than the nitty game where every hand the blinds are stolen or it goes HU to flop then cbet and take it down.

Don't forget the brutality of how much tipping deducts from a winrate!

@GPS: You are a nit and the nit is the last type of person that a good player should try and appease/appeal to.

Again, I ask where is the proof of that statement? Show me where in my model you show that bold statement to be true? Of course, big pots are desirable. And the more players, the bigger the pots. I just went online and looked at avg. pot size in 25-50cNL 6 handed and it was $6. In the 9 handed games, it was $8.25. The 9 handed games had 37% bigger pots. Going 8 handed will have smaller pots on average than 9 handed. (even though I compared 6 to 9 handed in this example)
You also mention the brutality of tipping on win rates. If you play 8 handed vs 9 or 10, you will be winning more pots and thus tipping more so that will be a drag on your winnings as well.

uhhhhhh, ya. and uhhhhhhh \discussion

Less players leads to bigger pots is a flaw!

Another big flaw in your logic is that you consider this a war between two types of players you (pros / regs / winning players ) and them (or us if that makes you happy) (nits, rake sense, level 1 thinkers, ...), where in fact you did not consider the most (YES MOST) important part of this game: recreational/ tourists/ random players/ newbie / etc. All of the latter prefer to sit on the lasts empty seat on a 9-handed table, and would not sit on table that has 4/5 players when they know it will play like this.


Of course on this forum you call anyone whatever you want!! I can tell you that I am the type of player that you cannot tag, let alone by one word, let alone by someone like you!! Of course you don't want me at your table, because you already made your first mistake, which will let me take you over at the table by level one thinking, as you prefer to call me!!

In the end of the day, the "bad" or "losing" players are the ones who pay for all the "pros" and the casino upkeep to run the poker room. Shorter tables makes losing players lose much faster, and once they are past their "pain point" they don't come back.

If the same number of pros or try-hards or even break-evens go play 7-handed now instead of 10-handed as it was i my casino before the lockdowns, this means 3 (THREE!!!!!!) less fish per table than it used to be. I rest my case.


Let me tell you: many "fish" or bad players still keep score and will stop showing up if their losses become too big per unit time. Also, where will a rec player sit to play: 1) on a table with 6 hooded "kids" with earphones or 2) on a table with 6 hooded "kids" with earphones and 3 "normally looking" middle aged folks?

Also, in a 10 man table, Billy the Rock who only opens Aces is still good for the game by keeping the fish from blinding down faster and giving you more opportunity to get a good spot against the fish.


Also, last but not least, in a game where half of the table has 50-70 BBs, there isn't much "post flop mastery" to be exercised. Post flop matters, but not nearly in the same way as in 5-max 500BB deep game.


P.S. What I wrote is particularly in effect in where I am: Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun in CT. These two are the only game in town and the stream of tourists cannot match that of Vegas or Florida, so regs and OMCs are an important part of the poker ecosystem.

The bolded is about the only accurate thing you said.

Billy the rock who only opens aces utg is not good for any game . If you're in a situation where OMCs are actually keeping games going then poker is dying in that place anyway.

It's also funny how going from 10 handed to 7 handed in your mind is only removing 3 bad players from each and every table. You're making a false conclusion because you're making a false premise. Yes a rec would rather play with 6 euro turds with headphones AND three randoms than just the 6 euro turds but that's not the reality of the situation. There are plenty of tables where instead of 6 euro turds and 3 randoms for that rec there are now 3 euro turds and 3 randoms etc, 4 euros , 2 randoms etc.

Yes some fish keep score but you're also missing the fact that while there are definitely fish who only play poker and when they lose x dollars they're done there are plenty who will lose a lot more the more fun they are having. they will also go lose in in blackjack or whatever instead of poker if they aren't getting enough action/fun at the poker table.
There are many different kinds of losing players.

They wont listen, they only care about their win rate (short term)!! Even though this is your first post for you after 2+ years, which speaks a lot, they will tag you as nit because you like normal poker more than short handed one!!

BTW these are the same people that bashed DN for 'more rake is better' stand! They are promoting more rake for the casino because they believe it will make their win rate higher!!

I wish poker rooms would just offer some variety of nlhm like, first 2 tables in the morning to open are 9 handed low limit but the third table should be mandatory $20 bomb pot every hand or 6 max 5-10 game or something fun. Maybe we who want it just have to start asking for it and suggesting it to everyone else in the room but, you know what will happen, the ****ing nits will start screaming, no no no, because the gambley players they prey upon will leave their tables for the more fun games.

Mohegan still doing great 7 handed with Foxwoods right down the street 9 handed.
Haven’t heard any recs complain. I think they like the action.
I’ve only heard like 2 OMC’s complain about 7 handed in my time there.

Hoping Mohegan stays short handed.
OMC’s can go to nitwoods. Win win.

Regs at foxwoods wanted to keep plo 10handed when management suggested making it 9h. They are truly the most clueless nits in the world.

In response to the last few posts:


1. Having variety at table choice is a great idea. The more options, the better. Before the lockdowns, there was choice in the fact that people who knew each other could ask for a special table to be open for their party. However, this is too rare to be practical in any noticeable form.
2. When you disagree with people, calling them names is childish. Some people refer this as the "SIGN" language: trying to Shame, Insult or Guild others to agree with you and the Need to be right (under any circumstance).
3. When the fish is rare, which table is more likely to have at least one? The 7-handed or the 10-handed?
4. The skill advantage you have over the other pros and "kids" may not be enough to offset the rake and keep you profitable.
5. If the game is "dying" you revitalize by making more people welcome at the tables. If you can't help, please don't interfere.
6. Props and paid players have been an important stable for may casinos over the years to keep the game going. Were all these casinos "dying"? The OMCs who use to play for points are today's props, cleverly and cheaply attracted by the casino. By the way, if you are that good, you can make the OMCs leave your table in the first half hour.

Fish are not rare at all in live poker though…. It is most common player type IMO.

Just heard a disturbing report from the field. Most casinos in Las Vegas are 8 handed now instead of 9. A buddy played for the first time in a year and reported at the Orleans that the poker room no longer allows the blinds to chop the pot! WTF. It is the player's money, if they want to chop, let them. But no, the casino makes more rake if they don't chop. If you think you are so good you can beat 20% rake by not chopping then you are wrong. Also, the table got short-handed a few times, and players then sat out and had to wait 5 minutes for new players to show up before playing again. This is more reason to have 9 or 10 handed cash games. Because 9 or 10 handed is really 8 or 9 handed on average when you account for people walking and time to fill open seats.

The last time I was playing 7 handed cash at Borgata and my table sat out twice when the game got down to 4 handed and the remaining players refused to play until the other players returned to their seats or new seats are filled. It was very annoying and the dealers weren’t pleased. And the players get irritated when the games get short. I am personally fine with 8 handed but 9 handed is perfect in my opinion. I think a typical casino poker table should be able to seat 9 players comfortably (assuming we don’t have multiple 300 lb linemen seated at the tables). This should also help with the long wait lists constantly seen during a busy weekend at popular rooms like Borgata and Parx, for example.

Regardless of whatever lame justifications people have for wanting more players at a poker table, what they are really saying probably without noticing it is that they want more skill taken out of the game. Why not build mega tables and have 15 people around it and really pay less rake per hour because you are forced to fold absurdly strong hands preflop?

I completely understand there are plenty of recs that like a full table, just like there are many recs that want to get in there and mix it up with the more gamble heavy pros in a short handed environment. My only problem is with the regulars who are too scared or not talented enough to widen their ranges short handed and instead try to claim that 9 or 10 handed is the purest form of poker.

Ladies and gentlemen, come and see the SIGN language in action: Shame, Insult, Guilt, Need to Be Right. "You either agree with me or you are making lame justifications because you are not talented or scared."

The poll results are pretty clear. 126 votes with 73% of them saying they prefer 8max.

That doesn't mean the non-2+2 population feels the same way and it doesn't mean that people who prefer 10 or 12 handed don't have every right to feel that way and advocate for it.

But it does mean that the vast majority of people on 2+2 prefer 8-max (or even less players).