If the operators do go with 4 handed hopefully they will have the business sense to drop $1 or $2 before the flop. Otherwise there won't be a pot to rake... Also with most pots going heads up the pots may be smaller and again impacting their rake.

I am one of the ones in the camp believing by Sept or Oct. barring any crazy outbreaks or huge spike in cases, that we will see 9 handed spread...

I invoke the internet right to come back to this post if it somehow is accurate and claim I am a wizard or something...

If you are not right, there won't be anybody here to read your future posts.

I believe you are being too pessimistic.

I was already looking at learning these games because the mixed games are the biggest game at local card room. Looking for good free online resources to cut my teeth on before I decide to expand my 2+2 library.

Maybe Mason Malmuth can help me out.

Yes and I am going to FEAST like a mother ****er once this 4 handed poker opens yum yum and yum!

This one got me

This is all true, but I'm envisioning 2/5/mandatory 10 straddle, or a 2/5/5BBA, or a 2/5 all ante 1, or a 2/5/5button ante, just lots of options and probably $500min, $1k max buyin on the $2/5, all sorts of ways to encourage action, and all would be pretty sweet with live players who are jonesing to get back into playing.

Yeah, maybe Mason can start a company that SELLS materials on how ro play various poker games. On the side, he can offer a website, with a forum, where players can post strategy and tips for discussion.

..... jusr maybe.

It seems like a very popular and strong sounding boast for a poker player to claim to enjoy, prefer and beat shorthanded games. Some of the boasters are probably genuine winners who thrive at shorthanded play, while others are probably faking it.

It will be interesting to observe what will actually happen at live 4 (or 6) handed poker games over the next few months. Because even if a player is very skilled at a particular game, that game may not be the best financial opportunity, for multiple reasons.

My questions for short handed specialists are:

Is there a reason to believe that losing players will buy in for more money at 4 handed games. If most likely, players will risk the same amount of money as they would for a 9 handed game at the same stakes, then why do you think that your increased skill advantage at shorthanded is enough to over compensate for the fact that there will be less than 50% of the money on the tables on average at 4 handed than a full ring 9 handed game?

Also, doesn't each player wind up paying more per hour in rake when shorthanded?

How does the math work for all of this to create such an advantage that would make a room full of 4 handed games actually a better money making opportunity than full ring?

What is a live, short-handed specialist? what game do they play and where?

Several posters seem chomping at the bit to start playing live 4 handed, some suggesting that 4 handed will be a better opportunity than full ring, and bragging vaguely about how they will destroy the games. I'd like to hear answers to the above questions from some of these folks, whether they are short handed specialists live, online, or in their fantasies.

imagine playing 4 handed and the sb asking you to chop in the bb

Imagine having to explain to the 50 year old white guy in cargo shorts and a giant card protector from home that chopping 4 handed is dumb, and he says, "Well, I always chop, even ACES!"

I suppose it has a chance at working. Seems like the most rec players would avoid it since they usually don’t like playing short, so it sounds like a tough game.

It’s not about the amount of money at the table if 7 players are nits or regs. The way poker works is winning players don’t win x% of the money on the table on average, they win by beating the fish/whales. It’s true good regs take money from bad or worse regs, but this isn’t where the living is being made at most stakes.

Also, in 4 handed it moves faster so more hands per hour but in addition to more hands per hour, you’re playing way more hands that are now +EV. On top of more hands per hour and playing more hands, both of which drastically increase my win rate, most players by far, regs included, don’t know how to adjust to 4 handed when they are live players and over or under adjust in some form or fashion.

All of my best live sessions have been short handed, where more times than I count I’ve busted everybody. Like I said it’s going to be yum yum

Sigh, just, Sigh

I certainly do not dispute the strategic advantages an excellent shorthanded NLHE cash player has over poor playing opponents at 4 max. However, there are many other factors aside from comparative skill advantage that will cut into the increased hourly rate a short handed specialist may earn, that in the end that player would have been better off with mostly full ring games, if they were still available.

It's a different dynamic when a 9 handed game game becomes 4 handed, than at a 4 handed maximum game. It is possible that some players who knowingly start their sessions 4 handed will be less maladjusted to short handed play then they would if a full ring game became short handed.

Whether games are 4 handed or 9 handed, there is, at best the same overall population of players that includes a certain percentage of fish/whales. At a 9 handed table, there is a better chance of having more terrible players than at 4 handed. So, there is less fish/whale money at a shorthanded game than at full ring (less good players too vying for the fish/whale money), but not a bigger percentage of fish/whales.

More likely, at 4-max, there will be less overall players in the player pool, which means less fish/whales. Less players like me who may be break even or small winners or losers at 9 handed NLHE, who will know better than to get involved as an underdog 4 handed. Others who don't realize their comparative disadvantage, or aren't humble enough to admit it, will find out the hard way, but not necessarily continue to contribute for a long time.

So, if the 4 handed games really are so "yum yum" that good shorthanded players bust all of their opponents often, the games will dry up quickly. Losing players need to win sometimes to be motivated to return to the game another day. It may be a boom to some, but likely a very short, unsustainable one. Good luck with taking advantage of a short lived opportunity. I mean it sincerely, because you won't get any of my "yum yum" money.

I think your average fish would much rather play 9 handed vs 4 or 6. They're already intimidated by 9 handed play that I see a lot of people being exposed much quicker and walking away if forced to play short handed. Think this is definitely really bad for the poker community going forward.

I wouldn’t drive one minute to play in this rat trap with electronic chips. Whoever developed it wasted their money.

Not sure why everyone assumes we have to change Poker forever. All of this BS will never be the norm.

Some small rooms may close and put in slots or something else. The bigger ones may have some four handed Poker for a while but I expect/hope things to be back to normal by possibly late summer.

This is much ado about nothing imo (in terms of thinking poker will be changed forever not the virus)

The majority of live players at the mid/low stakes level have winnrates that hover around breakeven (small loser to small winner). The primary skill of these players is their ability to fold 85% of hands in the first few positions. This negative sum ecosystem is propped up by a few major losers injecting well over their share of the rake in loses. These players lose in many positions but the biggest gap in winnrate by position compared to the median player comes in the first few position. These players use a high investment strategy (playing lots of hands pre, lots of betting and calling post) in all positions. In a 9 handed format they get torn up by a field best handing them.

This ecosystem is not sustainable if the huge losers lose less in terms of bb/100. Imo this is likely in 4 handed games. Playing a high investment strategy performs much better when you are always in late position or in the blinds vs a late position player. Even if the aggression isn’t well calibrated, an aggressive player will out perform a tight player in late position hand formations. Good players don’t mind short handed games because they see more hands vs the fish/whale and have the postflop skill needed to win money even if their opponent isn’t making a preflop mistake. The median player hates short handed games because their primary weapon (waiting for a premium hand and extracting the max from a fish) gets nerfed when they get to see less free (no blinds) hands.

The major question to me is what will happen if the median player in the old ecosystem stops showing up. For sure there will be less players overall. That sucks for the casino, but not necessarily for the crushers. The problem is the median player does actually serve a purpose; they prop games for free, or at least for some food and a shot at the bad beat jackpot. There is always a game for the whale to play in because the break even players keep the game running. In the new four handed ecosystem will there be enough fish to go around and will games sustain in the time between when a fish busts and a new fish sits down? Think about the old stories of high stakes heads up players sleeping by their computers waiting for a fish to sit or even seat scripters today. It’s not as easy to scale up and down the number of hands played when playing requires a physical location. If games exist I’ll be thrilled to play them 4 handed, but i see a lot of potential clouds on the horizon.

Pros Will Ultimately Do Worse In Mandatory Four Handed Games

Many pleasure players will not play.

Other pleasure players will play for a time, lose too quickly and then play less often or stop playing all together.

Just a dick measuring competition at end of day

DGAF bro