There will be a tipping point where virtually no one is making money in low stakes games if players per table is reduced and rake isn't.

Regardless of the bluster from all these hotshot crushers who claim that "I'll make more along with the house" in short-handed games, here are some undeniable truths:

The overwhelming majority of poker players lose in the long run.

A higher percentage of players will be losers in short-handed games with the same rake structure as FR. Furthermore, they will lose their bankrolls more rapidly.

A higher percentage of players money is being sucked out of the poker economy into the hands of the house in short-handed games.

How can anyone come to the conclusion that short-handed games are desirable for low stakes no limit games?

`1) to be fair I mostly play time games
2) while you may be right long term, there is no reason someone actually good at poker should make more money 9 handed than 7 or 8 handed all else being equal. there's a lot of room between hotshot crusher and mega nit.

You can claim good players will win more all you like. However, on average players lose more money in 7 or 8 handed games due to higher rake. This is an undeniable mathematical fact.

Do you believe players losing more on average to the house is good, bad or neutral to the long-term sustainability of poker?


FWIW, I have absolutely no objection to short-handed games if the casino is only taking a time charge. However, if the casino is raking pots it's terrible.

Have 72 players. Do you feel the house takes more money out of the poker economy if there are 8 nine player games or 9 eight player games assuming it rakes each game equally? In the long run every dollar the house takes at lower limit games where most players have a set amount they can lose is a dollar the winners don't win.

It's incredible the egos of these guys. They're actually arguing in favor of the house sucking more money out of the poker economy because they think they'll be able to exploit weaker players short-handed.

Again you're conflating 2 different things.
If you think the house makes more money 8 handed in a rake game so that's bad long term you may be right.

But that doesn't mean a good player makes more money 9 handed than they do 8 handed or 7 handed.

It's also way more fun to play short handed if you actually know what you're doing.

I'd argue you're the one with an incredible ego for someone who has been playing for as long as you have who hasn't advanced past hitting it up in low stakes nl games.

Umm, what would lead you to believe I have an incredible ego? All I'm saying is the house raking a higher percentage of players funds is poor for the long-term health of low stakes poker. There's nothing egotistical about that.

"If you think the house makes more money 8 handed in a rake game so that's bad long term you may be right."

How could it ever be a positive long-term?


"But that doesn't mean a good player makes more money 9 handed than they do 8 handed or 7 handed.

It's also way more fun to play short handed if you actually know what you're doing."

It's possible, but on average players will lose more, even if some outliers win more. Again, undeniable fact.

Sure, if you're playing for enjoyment and don't mind paying a higher rake per hour for short-handed games, I can see how it would be preferable for you. I still contend It's detrimental to the long-term health of the game.

Borg, you didn't respond to this:


"Do you believe players losing more on average to the house is good, bad or neutral to the long-term sustainability of poker?"

Do you care to?

I think in smaller markets it's definitely bad but it's not perfectly analogous to a casino just raising the rake. You're also getting a different game for that increase.

I think most bad players for example prefer 8 handed to 10 handed (I mean yea OMC would prefer 13 handed), but also prefer 8 handed to 5 handed. They don't like paying blinds but they like more action and that's a good mix for them. If people lose too fast they stop playing but they also stop playing if they don't have fun.

Long term in most markets I agree the average player would be better off 9 handed but I don't think it's super clear cut and I could be wrong on that.

Losing players have to get something for their money. If they don't have fun they do something else with that money so there's a fine line. It's not merely "x more dollars comes off the table per hour so that's bad"


But if I had a choice of playing in a 9 handed game or 8 handed games I'm choosing 8 handed every time.

Do you think these losing players have unlimited funds? In short-handed games they're exploited by both the casino and more skilled players to a higher degree. I think losing players are less likely to play if they go from winning 35% of sessions 9-handed to 20% 8-handed.

It's undeniable that the average player pays more to the house, and your point of contention is high skilled players win more. That has to be devastating to all players other than the miniscule percentage of live players who can exploit an 8-handed game to the degree necessary to offset the rake increase.

Most fun I've had playing live cash is 5 handed. You play way more hands and get into spots with the same opponents over and over again such that you recognize there tendencies, move to exploit them, then they recognize what you're doing and adjust, and so on. Imo, this is what poker is supposed to be.

This faster action may bring in many more recreational players... because it's fun.

Reduce the rake. Maybe switch to self-dealing to reduce the rake.

I don't think all the tables should be switched to 5 handed but casino's should consider offering it.

To reiterate, I have absolutely no objection to short-handed games if casinos reduce rake (or better yet, just implement a time charge) accordingly. However, in my experience casinos simply charge the same price as they do for FR, which is devastating.

No I don't think they have unlimited funds and specifically said that
But the more enjoyable the experience the more they're willing to lose

I think most recs prefer 8 handed to 9 handed and definitely to 10 handed
Even just having the extra space is nice

I think most recs also prefer 8 handed to 5 handed

The borgata actually tried 6 handed tables maybe 10 years ago and it was a total failure.

Was rake structure the same?

I disagree. Most low limit players are working class and I think they'll cap losses regardless of level of enjoyment.

Strange that people think players will have a better time being smacked around by the rake and more skilled players, but you may be correct.

First off no poker game should be 8 handed due to Covid at this Time. The fact that Gaming Commissions allow Casinos (Ill Give Atlantic City as a example) to run 8 handed poker DUE TO COVID-19 when they allow Tournaments to Run 10 Handed or Time Games to Run 9 Handed is pure Ridiculousness. Apparently Covid doesn't spread in the Tournament section or on timed games as opposed to raked games. ..... Pure Trash and a disgrace to the poker gaming industry. Every Player should be lining up on the commissions door step to voice displeasure.

Yea, I noticed that the casino that opted for 8-handed has less traffic than pre-covid, while the 9-handed casino has not experienced a decrease.

Furthermore, I suspect the percentage of 1/2 players who have the skill to exploit an 8-handed game to the degree necessary to off-set the rake increase is significantly smaller than most believe (2/5 is an entirely different story.) Furthermore, either way we still have a situation where a miniscule percentage of players win more and the overwhelming majority lose more.

I read an overview of how rake impacts games. According to his data, 9 handed games on average have 8.13 active players per hand dealt. This means 8-handed games should have on average 7.22.

7.22 players with at minimum $5+1 rake is truly devastating. How many players are making money in the format?

If poker players do not fight back against rake increases and reduction of players per table, low-stakes live poker will soon become a game where only the house profits.

The fact that some players support it is mind-boggling.

I hope rooms trial 7 handed.

Why?

Personal preference. I also think sitting at the table with fewer people is physically much more comfortable.

You're willing to absorb a rake increase that renders the game nearly unbeatable for more comfort?