Quote:
Originally Posted by borg23
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.