Table Size: 9 person versus 10 person lond-hand

[Adam Selene]

I've noticed that some large poker rooms (e.g. PokerStars) use 9 person long-hand tables and others (e.g. PartyPoker) uses 10 person long-hand tables.

Is there are substantial preference amongst skilled players for one or the other? Is the difference in hand probabilities and matchups probabilities significant enough to be noticeable?

[bobbyi]

FYI, this carries over from live poker where the west coast plays 9-handed and the east coast plays 10.

[AncientPC]

Sites will prefer 9 person tables as that means more hands played = more rake.

[WhiteWolf]

Stars is weird... No limit full-ring (and their SNGs) are 9-handed, while limit full-ring is 10 handed. I don't know why it's different for the two....

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
Stars is weird... No limit full-ring (and their SNGs) are 9-handed, while limit full-ring is 10 handed. I don't know why it's different for the two....

[/ QUOTE ]

I think Super System 1 mentioned that this was standard. Or perhaps it was 11-handed limit and 10-handed NL.

[PlatinumPaul]

I read an article (in I believe in either Card Player or Buff) that has an offhanded remark about why sites prefer 9 person tables vs 10 person tables.

Both table sizes hit the rake at about the same rate and earn about the same amount/hour for the casino. With 9 person tables, you have more tables, thus more profit for the casino.

So which is better for the player? At a 9 person table you are roughly paying 1/9 of the rake. While at a 10 person table you are paying 1/10 of the rake. If both tables pay the same rake, it is obviously more expensive to sit at the 9 person table as your contribution to the profitabiliy of the site has increased.

You can also think of it another way. If there are 90 people playing online, and the casino is making X profit. The profit per person is X/90. If they field 10 tables (of 9 persons each) instead of 9 tables, their profit will increase. Thus their profit per person is also increasing. That profit has to come from somewhere.

Because of this, I prefer the 10 person tables.

[ConfusedAgain]

who are you

[AncientPC]

A 4/30 member asking about a 4/25 member?

As a player, rake aside is there any difference from 10 -> 9 playered tables? The difference isn't as drastic as 10 -> 6 playered tables, but I suppose you could open up a bit in LP.

[sweetjazz]

I personally prefer 10-player tables, especially live. For me, this is because I am capable of being patient whereas many other players are not. I also like that there is another seat available for a fish to occupy. I like that if there are enough bad players they can make allow me to play hands that would be unprofitable if not for their presence. I also like that since I am involved in a smaller percentage of hands, I have more time to observe my opponents.

That said, I'll play at any table that has 2 - 12 seats occupied as long as I have a large enough edge to make it worth my while.

[_TKO_]

[ QUOTE ]
I personally prefer 11-player tables, especially live.

[/ QUOTE ]

I very regularly see 7- and 8-handed flops.