How many players at the table for highest BB/h?

[Ludanto]

Let's say you are +EV against John and you make 2BB/100 if you play him heads up. John takes 5 seconds on every street to decide what to do.

How many Johns do you want to play at the table with? (between 1 and 9)
Give a reason for your answer. Math is very welcome. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[RustyBrooks]

I don't know if there's really a good way to answer this, for the simple reason that multi-way hands play far differently than heads up hands, and lots of people who are good at playing hands heads up suck multi-way, and vice versa, not to mention that a lot of bad characteristics heads up are not so bad multiway. Also, even in HU situations at a fuller table, the hands play differently because the potential hand range is different.

In general, if you are better than your opponents, you want as few of them as possible, because the table sees more hands per hour, and you can play a larger percentage of hands that you are dealt.

However, fuller tables can be better because multi-tabling now becomes an option (I have trouble playing more than 2 HU games at once, but I can play 5 full tables fairly easily (holdem... stud games more like 2-3))

[jay_shark]

It's hard to say because John may be a better full ring player than a heads up player . Likewise , you may be a better heads up player than a full ring player .

In general , heads up cash game players tend to make more money than full ring games . Part of this reason is the lack of eduation/poker books available heads up games . The upside for full ring players is that there is much less fluctuations in your bankroll .

[jay_shark]

[ QUOTE ]

However, fuller tables can be better because multi-tabling now becomes an option (I have trouble playing more than 2 HU games at once, but I can play 5 full tables fairly easily (holdem... stud games more like 2-3))

[/ QUOTE ]

excellent point!

[Ludanto]

So there are on simple guidelines to decide between a playing heads-up and a full ring table?

[RustyBrooks]

Personally I like minimized full ring tables, like 6max. But like anything else (full ring or heads up) you need to become acclimated to how the game plays. Many people never adjust their full ring play to short handed. Even better than 6max tables are full tables with only 5-6 players - these people have no clue how to step up the aggression and open up the hand ranges.

I think skill and psychology are the deciding factors. Heads up play can be brutal, streaky, and your edge over bad players is not enough to prevent you from taking dozens of brutal beats in a row. If you are sufficiently skills and your opponents sufficiently bad, I think heads up is the way to go. I can't do it, it tilts the crap out of me.

I loved 6max and 5max when I played it a lot. I mostly play stud games now, where the max # of players is 8 and that's OK, but I still prefer when there are fewer players, especially if they are bad.

[jay_shark]

You get dealt more hands per hour in heads up which is significant . Heads up players tend to make more money than 6-max players and 6-max players tend to make more money than full ring players .

On the flip side , your variance will be lower the more players at your table .

[RustyBrooks]

I guess that was not a direct answer to your question. The real answer depends on your edge, defined in terms of return on bets. That is, for every $ you put in the pot, how much do you expect to get back? 3% is a pretty good edge. If your edge is the same in full table, 6-max, or HU then clearly you should play HU because you get to put in way more $ per hour, and thus will make more $ per hour.

I just don't think you can define a "simple rule" that determines the right course of action here.