Is it better to play at a poker table with more or less players - lets say all players are equal in talent.?

Question

What are your better odds? Playing at a table thats full - 9 players including yourself, or less players - lets say 4 including yourself.

Which is better or does it not matter?

Answer 1

definitely less players although beginners should always avoid heads up cash games because they can get outplayed more often and lose a huge amount of money

Answer 2

always fewer players.

If you have 4 players, you have a 25% chance of beating 3, 50% chance of beating 2, 75% chance of beating one.

If there are 3 players, you get 33/66%.

If there are 2 players, you get 50%.

This is why tournaments with 1k players are so hard to win, and why most of the big money winners on the sharkscope leaderboards only play heads up.

Answer 3

equal talent you will all break even in the long run, regardless the players at the table.

you should always play against players with lesser skill than you,

otherwise you will not win any money unless you get lucky, but luck doesn't last forever so you will eventually lose your money to the better players.

short handed tables can be fun if you want to play alot of hands, but when you hit something big it isn't likely you will get paid off. On full ring tables (9 players) you should play more tight and let the fish pay you off when you hit something big... a primary reason why it's better to play against bad poker players.

Answer 4

It depends on preference - small table is (should) be a more aggressive game since starting hand requirements are looser. If you don't loosen up on a short handed table the blinds will eat you alive. If you like playing more hands the short handed table is the way to go.

Answer 5

I think it is much better to play with equal or better talent. Players with little or no talent can be very loose and go all in at silly times and then you call and they get lucky... It's a nightmare.

I only play with skillfull players and prefer a small table, say maybe 4-5

Answer 6

With equal talent I would say more players even though your chances of taking the pot is decreased the win will be increased so you have more chance of having that lucky break.

Answer 7

If all players are truly 100% equal (we're of course speaking hypothetically), then over the long hall it will even out regardless.

The saying "if you sit down at a table and can't spot the weak player(s) - you're it" is very true.  You want to play at a table with weaker players that play too many hands and go too far with them.  And the fuller the table the better.

Answer 8

Also when you are at the table with less players, the blinds come around a lot faster and in a tournament that can hurt you in you are short stacked...I hate playing tournaments or cash games with 5 or less people...full table is much better

Answer 9

If all players are equal in talent, no one is going to make any money.

It is always best to play at a table where you have better skill than some or all of the other players.  Then you can exploit their mistakes.

If you play at a full table of nine or ten players, there is more money to be won.  Therefore I'd say you'd make more money at a fuller table.  The more players, the greater the odds that some inferior players will be there putting money into the pot.

Answer 10

All things being equal, the odds of you winning in a table against three opponents (one in four)  is greater then against eight (one in nine).  What's more people play more aggressively in a short table as opposed to a full one, so the pots tend to build.  Way better to play less people, even if the players at a full table are inferior.