Difference between 11, 10 & 9 handed
Ok, we had some good discussion on the difference bettween a 10 handed and an 11 handed game on a different thread. I'd like to start a new thread, as it was very much off topic, and just my observations of an 11 handed game at Port Perry.
It may just be helmulthian of me, and the fact that I can't stand losing -- even if it is in the short term. However, I do believe there are very subtle differnces between a 9, 10, and 11 handed game.
In my treasure chest, I have some research done by the fine folks at the University of Alberta, led by Darse Billings. (BTW have I mentioned they make the absolute best poker simulation software out there -- www.poker-academy.com). They ran a simulation to determine the income rates of every single possible hand, in a 7 handed, 4 handed and heads up game. The similation ran several million hands and found a similar result to hte the S&M hand rankings.
If you take a close look the return on a pair of aces goes up as there are more players in the game. However, hands like A9o go down in value from a 4 handed game to a 7 handed game. The same goes for KTo. And, while small suited connectors go up in value as you get more players in the game, they are still only marginally profitable in the long term -- even A9o is worth more.
So, what does all this mean. Based on my experiences, the differnce between a 9 handed and ten handed game is that you will find yourself in more short-handed pots in a 9 handed game, and you'll need heads-up skills to be more profitable in those situations == more selective aggression and more raise/fold decisions.
I'm not sure about what's needed to go from a 10 handed to an 11 handed game. But I do think there needs to be an adjustment -- more than an adjustment you would make in going from a tight game to a loose game.
a) I think playing small pockets to hit sets goes down, as does small suited connectors.
b) I think more patience is required, as the number of pots you will win goes down, but the size of the pot goes up
c) I think variance is a big part of things -- fewer, bigger pots == more variance
d) While I think the rake is oppressive, it should work out better in an 11 handed game, since you are winning fewer pots and contributing less to the rake
It may just be helmulthian of me, and the fact that I can't stand losing -- even if it is in the short term. However, I do believe there are very subtle differnces between a 9, 10, and 11 handed game.
In my treasure chest, I have some research done by the fine folks at the University of Alberta, led by Darse Billings. (BTW have I mentioned they make the absolute best poker simulation software out there -- www.poker-academy.com). They ran a simulation to determine the income rates of every single possible hand, in a 7 handed, 4 handed and heads up game. The similation ran several million hands and found a similar result to hte the S&M hand rankings.
If you take a close look the return on a pair of aces goes up as there are more players in the game. However, hands like A9o go down in value from a 4 handed game to a 7 handed game. The same goes for KTo. And, while small suited connectors go up in value as you get more players in the game, they are still only marginally profitable in the long term -- even A9o is worth more.
So, what does all this mean. Based on my experiences, the differnce between a 9 handed and ten handed game is that you will find yourself in more short-handed pots in a 9 handed game, and you'll need heads-up skills to be more profitable in those situations == more selective aggression and more raise/fold decisions.
I'm not sure about what's needed to go from a 10 handed to an 11 handed game. But I do think there needs to be an adjustment -- more than an adjustment you would make in going from a tight game to a loose game.
a) I think playing small pockets to hit sets goes down, as does small suited connectors.
b) I think more patience is required, as the number of pots you will win goes down, but the size of the pot goes up
c) I think variance is a big part of things -- fewer, bigger pots == more variance
d) While I think the rake is oppressive, it should work out better in an 11 handed game, since you are winning fewer pots and contributing less to the rake
Comments
Funniest reply ever.
How many maniacs are on the table, what position i am in relative to those cannons and the rocks on the specific table. All those considerations come into play i think more so. I don't doubt that a difference exists but my question is ... what hands that were playable profitably 10 handed are not playable 11 handed profitably and vice versa
i have trouble believing that it affects all but the most marginal of hands, and even then the table texture likely outways the number of players (9 vs 10 vs 11) ... in deciding to play.
a) Wrong. Hands that primarily get their value from implied odds would go up in value with more potential players in the pot.
b) & c) are the same point
d) yes, with more players your contribution to the rake would be less.
Anyway, Chugs said it right. Having an extra body at the table is meaningless. The real factor is the style of play of the overall table. 10 to the flop or 11 to the flop is equivalent. 2-3 to the flop has me looking for the exit.
Basically i want to know if in a 5-7 handed game im playing to many pots :P
Mike
I wouldn't recommend that. My suggestion that a 11, 10, 9 handed game had different starting hand values met with resistance. However, it should be clear cut that that a 6 handed game is very different than a full table. For a full discussion see http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Number=1572743&page=&view=&sb=5&o=
Cheers
Magi