If a slightly higher rake proportion renders live games nearly unbeatable you need to improve your game. Live poker is extremely soft and achievable winrates are very high, plus you get to play more hands shorthanded. I have absolutely no concerns about live winrates and am happy to play shorthanded -and- be more comfortable at the tables.

Plus, I'm happy to play in an environment that punishes nitty players more. I would be thrilled if live cash added bb ante even though that would massively increase rake burden.

By your logic, you should be advocating for games to be 10 handed, or even 15. After all, it would be a rake discount. I'm curious why you're only pushing for 9, and not 11 or 12.

I'm pushing for 9 because I think it's realistic. I'd be fine with 10.

Rake increases punish all players, not just "nits".

I'm good with 8-handed games. For me, the additional physical comfort is worth the slightly higher effective rake (plus many of the games I play in are time-charged anyway).

But any less that that creates problems in live games. My biggest issue is not the rake or a personal dislike of playing short-handed, but rather that the games are very unstable.

When you're playing at a 9-handed table, more often than not, you're not actually playing 9-handed. You're playing 7- or 8-handed because people get up from the table lot. And that's usually OK because most people who play 9-handed are also fine playing 7-handed.

But when you are playing at a 6-handed table, it always feels like the game is about to break as soon as 2 people stand up. There's a much bigger difference between playing 6-handed and playing 4-handed, and the majority of low-to-mid stakes players just don't want to play 4-handed or less for any extended time. Most of the time I've sat at a 6-max live table, it broke after like 30 minutes because one player busted and another got up to get dinner (for example).

At a minimum, if you are going to try to spread games below 8-max, you need to be very efficient at filling the tables, and much more strictly limit the amount of time a player can leave an absent stack on the table.

I agree that 8handed is a good compromise and running 6max live games is generally not so feasible. I do wonder if 7max wouldn't be stable enough to run, though. Perhaps not. 8max is still worlds better than 9max from a comfort perspective and has been a great shift.

Yes. But as you add more players to the table, correct play becomes tighter (because you're always adding on positions that are meant to play linearly nittier, and the response strategies against those players are correspondingly tighter). Shorthanded games mean you're in the blinds and in late positions at higher frequency. This is generally a good thing for non-nits.

Unfortunately, it turns out that solid NLHE play tends to be quite tight. Players get punished for actually playing hands and putting money in the middle. I'm much more interested in combatting these problems and encouraging a more active game environment than I am handwringing about a couple bucks per hour, especially when winrates of 25bb/100+ are still very possible in most live games (at least around the US).

Which is to say, **** the nits.

On average, there will be a significant decrease in average profit (or losses) per table 7 handed as opposed to 9 handed.

Large winners will win significantly less. Slight winners will become break-even players or even slight losers. Break-even players will become losers. Losers will lose more, and faster.

Do you have any idea how few low-stakes no limit (no limit players would) players will turn a profit 7-handed with our current rake structures?

But hey, adversely impacting virtually all players, generating more revenue for greedy casinos and jeopardizing the long-term sustainability of live poker is worth it, so long as we get to screw over some "nits".

The way poker is played has always been silly

We just accept things as they are as society.

Imagine playing 20 handed poker. Would be ridiculous.
But really 10,9,8 handed poker is ridiculous also. But it seems
normal because its where we started.

In all those old poker movies, you ever seen 10 handed games.

Usually its 5 or 6.

It's funny how seldom the rake issue is addressed. Sure, playing 5 handed might be more exciting. However, who is going to make money in a $1/$2 5-handed game with $5+2 rake?

well I wasn't commenting on what is most profitable.

I'm just saying true poker is not played with large number of players.

Like I have a great tell or useful info on someone, and guess what it never gets used,
because I never play a pot with that guy specifically. In shorter games, you get to have
several battles over & over, and the skill comes out more.

But ya, too short is kinda bad for rake. They used to have session fees which was awesome.
But all the casinos are too greedy now.

Fish prefer more players also. And they are correct, makes in more bingo. Less playing headup
pots over & over.

Fair. If all you care about is enjoyment, I understand your perspective. I just don't want to see low stakes poker become just another casino game where only the house can win.

This is absurd.

Let's take a room with $10 rake cap and assume that's hit every hand (which is extremely unrealistic in most US live games). Let's say you get 30 hands per hr, which is $300 in rake per hr coming off the table.

With 9 players, each player is paying $33.33

With 8 players, each player is paying like $37.50 -and- they get to vpip more hands profitably, plus the playing environment gets substantially more comfortable.

This isn't crushing anyone's winrate - with some really really unrealistically ugly assumptions, it costs players maybe $4-5 per hour. With more real assumptions, it might cost $2 or $3 per player per hour in rake burden. This is worlds away from threatening the profitability of anyone decent, and has other upsides for the game which actually will allow good players to win more as well as improving the game experience for everyone from a comfort perspective.

Tldr: what you're saying is simply not true. **** the nits.

Much more likely to see them go back to pre-covid seat numbers

Most place I play have long went back to their pre-covid seating of 9 (or even 10).

Any change that transfers more money out of the hands of the players to the casino is bad for the long-term sustainability of poker. If you think losing low-stakes poker players have an endless supply of disposable income and will happily support a structure where they're exploited by both the casino and stronger players to a higher degree, you've got another thing coming. If you claim you're winning more money in system where on average players are losing more money, consider how much more losing players are losing. They will not stick around. Poker is a fragile economy, and I've seen first hand the impact 6-handed and 8-handed games have on a room that was previously 9-handed. It's not pretty. A losing player who doesn't track results can convince himself he's break-even and donate for years. Double his hourly loss rate and he's likely to find another hobby.

I've recieved a lot of derisive comments about advocating for 12 or 13 handed games. It seems all you hotshot crushers think you can beat any rake and losing players will happily sustain any loss rate in order to play. Why don't you advocate for 3 or 4 handed tables?

BTW, let's say I could exploit a game for a couple of more bucks per hour inspite of the rake increase. I'd still staunchly advocate against it in respect to my fellow players and the long-term sustainability of poker.

When games were 7 handed when rooms reopened after the shutdown this was definitely a problem a lot. I haven't noticed it too often 8 handed.

I like the 8-handed games. Better than 9 handed, both for comfort and for action.

It's not doing very much to prevent COVID spread. But whatever works.

Someone posted a magazine article on here from the 50s or 60s -i think it was time magazine. Anyway it said hold em was played something rediculous like 13 handed.

There is obviously a point where the rake burden would become unsustainable. The argument you're making in principle is not incorrect, the incorrect bit is that moving from 9 to 8 is representing a massive problem. I think if casinos moved to 4 or 5 handed play with no rake discount, you would have a legitimate argument.

Given possible winrates in live poker today, what you're doing here is fearmongering and handwringing. You said there would be a "significant decrease in average winrate" and "large winners will win significantly less."

Let's not move the goalposts here. The reality is a couple more dollars per hour in rake burden per player, and winrates for decent players not being anywhere near threatened. It's not about being "a hotshot crusher who could win 3handed with the same rake." It's about honestly looking at the numbers and realizing the switch from 9 to 8 has other benefits and that the marginal rake burden increase is really not a huge deal.

So the argument is 8-handed is bad, but not completely untenable as 3 or 4 handed would be? Umm, ok.


To reiterate, someone has to lose to winning players. The money doesn't magically materialize out of thin air. If winrates aren't threatened in this environment, what does that tell us about the loss rates of the losers? They'll either stop playing, or play fewer hours.


Losing players have a limited amount of money they're willing to lose. There is not an unlimited amount of money up for grabs. Every dollar that the house takes is a dollar winning players do not win. Therefore, structures where the house takes less are preferable for all players in aggregate. You can't get around the basic math.

The argument is that there is an acceptable rake burden for playing live poker, and live 8max is still well within that threshold, especially given the game and experience upgrade from 9 or 10max.

The secondary argument is that your constant goalpost shifting is absurd and unproductive to discussion. I've never said it doesn't entail paying more rake per player. Your claims that going to 8max crush everyone's winrates and destroy the ecosystem are nonsense, full stop. 8max live games are still great and very high winrates are still achievable.

Further, it's obvious that moving to 4 or 5max, hypothetically, would be a different situation with a different evaluation, because the rake burden per player would get unreasonably high and there would be arbitrarily few winners. This is not the case at 8max with standard rake structures.

Not sure why this is tough to understand.

My gut feeling is that full rake becomes untenable around 5max, but there are other logistical problems with shorthanded live games and many players not wanting to play. While I personally would like to see 7max tables tried (didn't play any live during peak pandemic so did not experience any), I think 8max is a good logistical compromise, still facilitates acceptable winrates for decent players, and much prefer sitting at 8max poker tables to 9 or 10max games. I wouldn't be surprised at all if 8max is the optimal table size for live poker.

I don't think the same is true considering 5 or 6max live games, where rake burden gets substantially higher and games will run into frequent logistical issues.

Your assumptions are stupid. You're looking at it wrong. I don't want to bother trying to explain it to you I'll just point you to the most extreme example of your scenario, heads up. Also where I play rake is fixed so put that into your calculus as well. Is heads up poker with a $7 rake every hand beatable? Duh, no it's not. 9 handed poker with $7 rake beatable? Yes.

Yes, that's their argument. 8-handed is worse, but still beatable, and you get more elbow room so that makes it worth it 👌

"Further, it's obvious that moving to 4 or 5max, hypothetically, would be a different situation with a different evaluation, because the rake burden per player would get unreasonably high and there would be arbitrarily few winners. This is not the case at 8max with standard rake structures.

Not sure why this is tough to understand."

I understand it perfectly.

In the case of HU poker with a $7 rake, no one makes money. In the case of 8-handed, some people would make money. In the case of 9-handed more people would make money, there will be more break-even players, and the losers will lose less on average.

Elbow room aside, do you see why 9-handed is preferable? I've never claimed 8-handed is unbeatable, obviously it's not.

BTW, you've never addressed the issue of losing players curtailing their play due to a system that is considerably more exploitative. Do you care to?

Simple question: Do you believe a structure that is more costly to players on average is good, bad or neutral to the poker ecosystem?

Getting rid of break even players taking up space is better for good players and if it means going from 9 to 8 it's more enjoyable for bad players as well.

There's a balance. Losing players don't play for absolutely no reason. Either they have gambling problems ,they get some enjoyment out of playing or they convince themselves they win. This is no different from the pit.Tons of people swear they up lifetime in the pit,win betting NFL etc. So if for example you made games 14 handed nobody would enjoy that and almost nobody would play. If you made them 4 handed almost nobody would play.But most players except the nittiest of nits really don't care if it's 8 handed or 9 handed.

BTW, let's say I could exploit a game for a couple of more bucks per hour inspite of the rake increase. I'd still staunchly advocate against it in respect to my fellow players and the long-term sustainability of poker.

Sorry but this is totally disingenuous.I MIGHT believe you advocate against it for the long term health of the game but it would have NOTHING to do with respect for you fellow players and everything to do with your long term bottom line. Right now when you play you're playing to the best of your abilities -i highly doubt you're passing up spots,giving bad players rebates etc to keep the games more sustainable.

It also seems you're making 2 different arguments.

1) Long term 8 handed is worse than 9 handed for the health of the games- this is debatable and probably varies a lot by location.

2) good players make more 9 handed than 8 handed. This is total crap.

I don't say this to be a dick but the people who this is the case for need to work on their games a lot. You said it yourself - break even /slight winning players may become losers when you go to 8 or 7 handed- why is that? Bc they play too tight and too passive. So players who are actually good at poker get to use their skills more when the game becomes less and less about making good hands.


Look none of us are Phil Ivey. But when you've been grinding super low stakes for a long time you should ask yourself why? Maybe people who have higher win rates,move up beat bigger games etc know more than you do and you can learn from them. If you need the casino to protect you from 8 handed games it's bc you have a lot of flaws in your game. The good news is those flaws are a lot easier to fix than flaws are to fix in much tougher games.

And believe me I'm not trying to claim to be some wizard.i play with people better than me almost every time I play. I'll play as high as 10/25 plo regularly (mostly 5/10 with a small amount of 5/5 no straddle) with the very rare 25/50 when the game is amazing and public. People consistently making more money than me,be it the same games or higher (excepting private games) do so bc they have better work ethics than me or their brain just works better for a strategic game like poker (or both.) When I see them play a hand way differently than I would I'll try and reverse engineer why they did it (or the few I'm friends with I'll ask them) and incorporate it in my game.


The casinos aren't going to protect me from better players or do things to make my win rate higher, and most casinos are not going to protect you from playing 8 handed as that becomes more prevalent. Instead of getting offended when people say good players insist you can make more 8 handed than 9 or 10 handed you should be trying to figure out why that's not the case for you and improve.

Rake is only getting to get higher in the future, and inflation well outpaces how fast the lowest stakes get raised. You'll be better in the long run if you make the improvements you need in your game instead of expecting the casino to provide you the crutch of 9/10 handed poker.

If this is the core of your argument, may as well play with 22 players sitting on really long benches. After all, at the cost of some comfort, think of how much rake the players would be saving! Due to the reduced rake burden, losing players would also lose more slowly and be able to stay in the games for longer!

--

This is not sarcasm or bad faith. It's me pointing out why this is a shortsighted and super dumb argument, with the exact same logic you are using. Slight changes in rake burden are simply not the only relevant factor in live poker. And they're certainly not a major argument when discussing 9 vs 8 handed games.

Yeah man, I'm sure bad players will quit so much faster because an invisible rake burden goes up by 5% and they're more comfortable at the table.

Delusion.

Obviously, bad. I would be happy if live poker rooms reduced rake. It would be best for the players if games were rake free (and the casino still ran them, somehow). But caring excessively about marginal rake differences and not at all about any of the other factors is absurd, and that's the only leg you're trying to stand on.

I literally addressed this idea specifically in the post directly above yours. Try reading before you say my assumptions are stupid, please.

same obviously goes for games shorter than 5max as well. But, shockingly, these things aren't big issues at all when discussing 9 max to 8max.

"Yeah man, I'm sure bad players will quit so much faster because an invisible rake burden goes up by 5% and they're more comfortable at the table.

Delusion."

At this point I'm reluctant to continue the debate when the responses are blatantly deliberately obtuse. The entire premise of the opposing viewpoint is that good players will win more 8-handed. Now we're just going to conveniently omit that when it doesn't support our argument?

If good players are winning more despite higher average rake per player, where are the winnings coming from? They do not magically materialize out of thin air; they come from losers. Therefore losers will pay a higher rake burden, and lose more per hand to opposing players. That's a massive double whammy and could easily cause a player to quit or reduce hours. It's a lot easier to convince yourself you're a break-even player when you're losing $9 an hour as opposed to $22.

But you're trying to make 2 different arguments. I agree that in some locations long term 9 handed might be better for the term health of the game.

But you've also tried to say good players won't make more short handed which is insane. Nut peddlers won't make more short handed,good players will.