lmao

jesus christ just go to deadwood or some such place , play 2/4 limit 11 handed and let the rest of us play poker

The more players at the table, the more I hate the game.

You mean short handed poker, because poker is a 9/10 handed game

Can you comment on going the other way, down to 2 handed, as opposed to 20 handed?

Poker is not a 9/10 handed game. Poker is a game with many variants, and some of them (such as stud) are not meant to be played 9/10 handed.

low/mid stake rec here, and i love the having at least 1-2 of those earbud hoodie backpack pros at a 9 max. As madlex said, very much oversimplified, but imo there needs to be a balance of different players at a table.

For those advocating for 6-8 max, possibly there's a market for it, but every single short handed table that gets down to 6 players due to people on a break, open seat, etc i've always usually see the others at the table hawkeye over the rest of the room looking for seats. demand drives the market.

Want to open a 6 max game or heck even a heads up game? I'm sure most floors will accommodate with the right rake and if there's enough capacity.

btw, I'm expecting to see 9 max cash games at the wsop this year at most vegas properties, as there will be bedlam if there is an additional +2 hour waits for seats on top of the 2-4 hour waits. Even if you have a diamond card and can cut the "main" line, this will also arguably make the games worse in some regards, as many recs who play for fun or just wanted to casually check out the wsop are not going to want to wait around that long.

I’ll trade 8-max for the plexiglass coming down. That **** is a plague on playing poker.

You know we are talking specifically about NLHE. Which in fact is called full ring 9/10 handed game, that is why when we have another variant, it is usually listed as 8 max, 6 max, heads up, ..., etc.

I laughed

Ha, I get it. The second "more hands" means he'll play like 40% of all his hands at 6max but only 20% of all his hands at 9max or so. The first "more hands" refers to hands dealt/hour.

Reduced rake used to kick in 6 handed when games were 9 handed. Now it is 5 handed and you have to ask the floor who can take several minutes to approve it, slowing down the game. It used to automatic at 6 handed.

Here Mason shows how rake should be $3 max including jackpots for 1-2/3NL and $4 max for 2-5NL. (usually now $5+$2). And he explains how brutal the rake is for short-handed games thus showing why 9/10 handed is better than 8 handed. (ie you have to play tighter 8 handed due to higher rake)

https://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/s...9&postcount=21

Hi kid:

I'm not sure this is correct. There are different skills for playing multiway pots as opposed to short-handed pots. So, saying one version is more skillful than the other is not clear to me.

Best wishes,
Mason

Hi GPS:

Playing short-handed often requires a different skill-set than playing at a full ring game. It also means that certain poker concepts will lead you to different conclusions whether the game is short or full.

A simple example is that the UTG player, if he knows something about poker, will play much tighter in a full ring game than in a shorthanded game. It can also mean that hands which are worth a call if there are few players to act behind you are no longer worth a call if there are a lot of players to act behind you.

These are just two of many examples and it can go both ways. Sometimes indicating that the full game is more skillful and sometimes indicating that the short game is more skillful.

As for your specific question, a 20 handed game is obviously no good. But a two or three handed game can be good. However, in the very shorthanded games the standard deviation should go way up and that can be a problem for the long-term health of the game.

Best wishes,
Mason

Thanks for your explanation. I totally agree, however, how many recs and tourists are willing to sit at 2-3 handed game? We are not arguing about going up in number of players, because this will never happen, but about not keep going down!!

In fact, as you said in your book's post, more players means more luck and less skill, so less players means more skill and less luck! Poker is known as a game of both, those who want pure luck can play craps, and those who want pure skill can play go! However, let us not promote dominating one side over the other. There are already heads up and 6 handed games / tournaments for those who like it, but if things keep going this way, soon, there will be no full ring games !!!

The rest is probably fine but this is definitely not true. The rake structure isn't changing so you should be playing the same ranges in the same positions 8 handed vs. 9/10 handed. The only difference is that 9 handed has an extra position where you play tighter than all the other positions, bringing average VPIP down.

Or if it makes more sense to think about it a different way, later positions play more hands and pay more rake. Your CO RFI is going to be the same 9 or 8 handed but you're getting CO RFI spots more often 8 handed.

Hi GPS:

I’m sorry but I don’t remember saying “more players means more luck and less skill, so less players means more skill and less luck.”

Best wishes,
Mason have

Sorry about that, I misunderstood your discussion about the balance of luck and skill and mixed it!

Hi GPS:

Just a general thought not necessarily related to your post. But probability theory, and those things like poker which are based on probability theory can be counter-intuitive to many people. This means that when we're talking about things like expectation and variance, and how they relate to each other, we need to think carefully, and this includes me, about any conclusions that we come to.

For more discussion of how things at the poker table will often appear counter-intuitive, see my book Real Poker Psychology.

Best wishes,
Mason

Fold almost every time in the small blind and you should be ok.

I played 6 max at Crown Melbourne and 7 max at Treasury Brisbane (Australia) the last 2 weeks and from what I could tell OMC is still waiting for monsters, the limpers are still doing their thing, and the edges for players with a clue are larger.
I also found it easier to keep track of the tendencies of 5 or 6 opponents rather than 8.
Admittedly I lucked onto some good tables, but from what I could tell there wasn’t much adjusting of ranges from the recs.

lol, awesome, congrats. We need that everywhere.

I'd love 8 max live for the simple fact that stuffing 10 avg size male American bodies at a 10 handed table is way uncomfortable and opposite of social distancing. My home casinos are all 10 for tourneys and cash games.

Online I'm just meh about 8 max. 9 or 6 just feels right.

I think the Seminole Hard Rock of Hollywood, FL is keeping cash games 8 handed (saw this on the Bravo app but I'm out of state) now and for some non-trivial period of time into the future.


I prefer 8 handed over 9 or 10 handed. The things that I like about it include the wider opening ranges and increase in the number of hands an hour, as well as more physical space at the tables. I don't mind playing shorthanded when people get up, I like it in fact.

8 handed poker is exceptionally good provided you are an octopus and can't keep your hands to yourself.