Originally Posted by Henry Minute
I believe that your opening ranges etc... should stay the same as if all 6 players were there because the same number of cards will have been dealt, so I contend that you are not now supposed to win 1 in 3 hands you stay at 1 in 6 (I could well be wrong about this, I often am).
If at a STT 6-max and three players have been knocked out then it becomes 1 in 3.
How many times have you been at a table where a sit out is all in and ends up winning with the best hand? I see it a fair amount.
When there are 10 players the odds of there being 2 of a particular card, Ace for example, having been dealt are fairly high. The fewer players there are the longer the odds of 2 Aces gets. the fact that some of those players are sitting out doesn't alter those odds.
The problem, as always, is that you don't know who is holding the other A a sit out or a live player? That is the $64,000 question.
No, that's not right.
If you are going to get dealt two cards from the deck, you have the same probability of getting any given hand (say, AA) regardless of the number of people at the table. Sure, the dealer is dealing two cards to all of the other players, but since you don't know what these cards are, it doesn't make a difference to the probability for you
to get AA.
As for seeing AA more at a 10 handed table than a 2 handed table, that is
true. And the reason for that is simply because there are more people at the table receiving cards, so it is more likely if you see AA when you deal 10 hands than when you deal 2 hands.
But for any given person, the chances of getting AA pre-flop is the same, regardless of the number of hands you deal out afterwards to other players.
As for the sit-out argument, even though the sit-out-ers are getting dealt cards, what difference does it make? If they are just going to fold to the big blind/raise, does that matter?
Even if they have KK and are just going to auto-fold it, does that change how you would play? (I guess in this scenario it would, as you now know that there are 2 kings that aren't in the deck anymore.) But of course, you don't know what your opponents cards are in a real game. So the only information you have is that an opponent that is forced to auto-fold ends up folding 2 cards that you don't know what they are
...how is that different than the cards not being dealt in the first place?
As far as the opening ranges, that is wrong as well I believe. Imagine if your playing at a home game with you and your 5 friends. After you give each player 2 cards, you decide to deal 2 cards to your 14 imaginary friends. There are now 20 Hold'Em hands on the table, but 14 of them are the imaginary friends that are just going to open-fold to the raise/big blind. Are you now adjusting your range to the point where you are only supposed to win 1 in 20 hands?
The answer should be no. Even though there are now 28 dead cards (14 imaginary hands x 2 cards per hand), you didn't know what those cards were anyways. It would be no different than if they were still in the deck. So you're still playing your one hand against the 5 villains.
(Somewhat of an extreme example, but the main idea still holds...) Imagine if the sitters aren't there. The fact that there are receiving cards are irrelevant, because it ultimately doesn't matter what cards they have, and they are going to fold no matter what.