Number at the table

M

mojorising

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Total posts
97
Chips
0
If you are just playing cash tables casually rather than tournaments then I am thinking the odds are better the fewer players you face.

Is it worth looking for tables with fewer players?

Some places offer tables of 5 or 10 but why would you choose 10 if you can choose 5?
 
10058765

10058765

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Total posts
8,607
Awards
8
Chips
127
If you are just playing cash tables casually rather than tournaments then I am thinking the odds are better the fewer players you face.

Is it worth looking for tables with fewer players?

Some places offer tables of 5 or 10 but why would you choose 10 if you can choose 5?

Because 6-max requires other play compared to 9 or 10-max.
For example at 6-max the range of hands you play should be wider.
Some players do not feel comfortable widening their range and so stick to 9 or 10-max tables.

There's also HU tables, so why stick to full ring when you can play against 1 opponent only ?

Well, the less players at a table, the faster the game goes, which need adjustments in the way you play.

So some players prefer full ring, others prefer less opponents.
It's up to you to find out where you feel the most comfortable.
 
M

mojorising

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Total posts
97
Chips
0
I guess the question I am asking is for pure cash returns is there a numerical advantage in sticking to the smallest table available?

(and adjusting your game accordingly if necessary)
 
10058765

10058765

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Total posts
8,607
Awards
8
Chips
127
I guess the question I am asking is for pure cash returns is there a numerical advantage in sticking to the smallest table available?

(and adjusting your game accordingly if necessary)

Not really sure I understand your question well, but to maximize your cash return you have to play the format you prefer (are best at) at the number of tables you prefer.
 
thatguy6793

thatguy6793

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 10, 2017
Total posts
1,156
Awards
4
Chips
0
I guess the question I am asking is for pure cash returns is there a numerical advantage in sticking to the smallest table available?

(and adjusting your game accordingly if necessary)

If less people are at the table the blinds will come around more often so if you're not playing as often you actually could loss more money from the blinds then you win from the hands you play, thus the wider ranges. Also, pots are generally going to be smaller at these tables since usually less players will be in any given hand. The only real numerical advantage I can see is that since there's less people there less of a chance someone got dealt a better hand than you or will hit a random straight/flush with bad limping hands. If you really want to maximize your winning though you should play on the full ring tables (especially those with high pots and high P/F) because you'll have more non blind hands (7 vs. 4) which lets you play a more select range of hands and play more on position and it means you're playing at tables with fish that overpay there hands (at the 6-max tables the high P/F is due to the wider ranges meaning actually you have more of a chance of being beat by something that normally wouldn't be in a given players range). But that all is just my two-cents it's your choice where you feel most comfortable playing at.
 
Andrei Korolev

Andrei Korolev

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 16, 2015
Total posts
3,014
Chips
0
For me it does not matter,but prefer with the maximum number of seats...
 
M

mojorising

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Jul 17, 2017
Total posts
97
Chips
0
^^Less players means you expand your range and play most hands (more than 50%)

So there is less time twiddling your thumbs spectating.

From a potential earnings per hour basis I think their must be some advantage here if you are restricted to one table.

I guess you guys talk about playing multiple tables since you are folding 80% of your hands against 9 players and can then afford to cover more than one table from a time perspective?

If you are heads up I guess you are 100% involved in every hand so one table is enough.
 
R

redmast

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Jun 12, 2016
Total posts
1,989
Awards
2
Chips
141
I prefer to play at tables with 9 or 10 players. I feel more confident here. A table with 6 players I avoid. 1 on 1 I do not play at all. But I can play small tables if I get into tournaments for the last table.
 
diadiavalik

diadiavalik

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Jan 12, 2017
Total posts
649
Chips
0
A table for 10 players increases winnings for one game, but due to the fact that many players need to wait for the card, and a table for 5 players reduces your losses from weak cards, and, of course, a different style of play.
 
eberetta1

eberetta1

Legend
Loyaler
Joined
Aug 11, 2007
Total posts
2,220
Awards
7
US
Chips
172
Just numerically, if I am playing a 2 person table, i should win half the hands. If I play a 10 percent table, I would win about 10 percent of the time. Do you want to win half the time or 10 percent of your time. If you want to gamble, the lesser people tables might be more thrilling. If you are looking for something to just let hours and hours go by, a bigger table may be more your style.
 
R

Running Nose II

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 28, 2014
Total posts
572
Chips
0
As far as the money aspect goes, it's swings and roundabouts. A six seat table is faster and you will be dealt more hands, but the pots can be smaller. A nine seat table is slower but the compensation is that pots can be large. Myself, I orefer six seat tables because it's faster.
 
Top