Optimum number of players for NLHE on a 10 seater table ! (1 Viewer)

[Taghkanic]

My game is plenty social. I’m just saying I don’t find that cramming people in makes it more social. Less so, really. It makes some people (especially ME) grumpy when there isn’t breathing space.

If too many people show up than I want to sit, either they can wait for a seat (and still socialize) or I’ll sit out a bit. Since my game typically runs 6-7 hours, I can miss a few hands. There’s never a shortage of hosting busywork to keep me occupied.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I know you don't prefer 10 handed. That's okay, I don't either, hence my first comment. Prefer 6-8 for our dealer's choice. There's no chance I'm sitting out of my own game so that someone can have more elbow room, that's bananas.

I 100% stand by no, I'm not going to cap my invites when I'm starting a new game. If 10 show up the first night that's a great problem to have and will mean less 5 or 6-handed nights down the road. I know you run and play in some serious long standing games and appreciate the insight, but our nights are more social and we don't mind overcrowding occasionally, keeps people coming back. You play in card games with card players, most of my games are just friends looking to play cards to pass the time.

I agree with @NotRealNameNoSir, getting butts in the seats is the most important feature of a new game. Sure, you don't want anyone to be uncomfortable, but having a backup plan helps with that (extra table).

I run mostly tournaments, with a 10 player oval a 8 player octagon, and an 8 player stretched octagon (like an oval but all straight edges).

The 10 player table sits 10 as the final table, and allows up to 10 players if we have 25-26 players. I also have an extra plan for a 4th table if needed, providing up to 34 players.

If you are space constrained, you may need to cap at one table, otherwise you should always look to grow to your maximum level of hosting comfort.

 

[JackJack]

TBH I find that puzzling.

A standard rule of thumb is that you want 24 inches per person at a table.

At a rectangular 72” x 36” table you can only get 3 people on each long side and 1 person on each end = 8.

If you put 2 on each end that’s only 18” each on the short sides.

I have a 94” x 46” superelliptical and it is really only comfortable with 9 (8 + 1 dealer). I’ve had 10 (9 + 1 dealer) but it is tight. That’s much roomier than 72 x 36. IDGI

24” is nice, but go to a football stadium and 16” is not uncommon.

 

[shangs]

Up to 8 now Should I close entry

One game i play at regularly often has 10 and its too many haha

 

[Schmendr1ck]

If seating space is not an issue, I prefer 7-9 players for NLHE only - @BGinGA explains my thoughts exactly in his post above. That said, I will happily play cash down to 4 players all night, and I will grudgingly sit at a NLHE table with ten (but I'm hoping somebody busts out early and leaves).

For mixed games, 6-7 is ideal.

 

[BukNaked36]

I think it depends on the type of players you have.

There's a lot of folding in hold'em if you have some tighter players, then 10 still creates a good game. This assumes you actually have a comfortable 10 person table.

I think home games are generally looser leading to most people liking the lower numbers.

 

[Taghkanic]

24” is nice, but go to a football stadium and 16” is not uncommon.

Sitting at a table where you lean on a rail, manipulate cards and chips, and maybe deal cards, and you need to be able to see the other players and their chips, while you may also be eating or drinking something, and balancing a phone on the same rail… is a completely different usability problem than sitting in a stadium seat (which are designed solely to cram in as many bodies as possible).

Not remotely comparable.

Anyway, I’m not saying no one should ever sit 10 people. But you need a table that’s big enough. 72 x 36 is not big enough. 84 inches is also not big enough.

 

[Taghkanic]

Table manufacturer BBO actually recommends much more space than I suggested:

A general rule of thumb is to allow approximately 30 inches of table space per player.

That would be nice and roomy, but I think 30" is impractical for most unless you’re hosting 6-7 max.

https://www.bbopokertables.com/page/right-poker-table-size-for-your-space

 

[4SUMERZ]

I originally had a 10 seat table (84x42), (cash game) and could fill it without any problem....I even had a spare list of about 4 at that time. Over the years, people got work busy, one buddy passed away, one had a stroke that left them paralyzed on the right side, etc. 10 is too many at the same table in my opinion.
I decided to turn my 10 seat table into an 8 seater by rearanging the cup holders, eliminating 2 from the race track. (which has also been eliminated and cup holders moved to rail)
I still have regular 8 players, and have picked up a few spare players from another house that I play at, and friends from the golf course that I belong to.
I invite my regulars, give them a deadline to respond, then go to my spare list to fill the table. They know that they are a spare only, but they all play at other home games, so they don't have any issues. Only a few times over the past 5 years, that I didn't have a full 8, but 7. BTW, my 2 boys are on the spare/spare list, but one works shift, and the other owns his own business and has his hands full with a growing family of a 6, 3 and a 1 year old.
I personally prefer 7-8 rather than 10 at the table for cash games. Less crowded, more social, and we cut the session to 4 .5 hours, which is perfect.

Good Luck with your game.

 

[BGinGA]

Table manufacturer BBO actually recommends much more space than I suggested:



That would be nice and roomy, but I think 30" is impractical for most unless you’re hosting 6-7 max.

https://www.bbopokertables.com/page/right-poker-table-size-for-your-space

Lol, just like selling 16" stadium seats is designed to earn more dollars for the venue, a table manufacturer recommending tables with 30" space per player is designed to sell larger (and more profitable) tables. Neither is optimal for the end-user, only for the sellers.

20" works in a pinch, 24" is plenty even for tubbies.

 

[Taghkanic]

Back in the day I used to play in a home game held in the host’s kitchen, at a big rectangular table. He would try to squeeze in too many players. Plus there wasn’t much room between the table and the surrounding counters. There was also a dog and his three kids running around and grabbing stuff from the kitchen. To just get up and use the bathroom was a major operation.

I was at another game recently where the host has a large racetrack-shaped table. It’s bigger than most, and shorter dealers often need help reaching bets and cards. We were playing 9-handed plus a dealer.

The host serves dinner and has narrow side tables for people to put plates/cups on. Normally these are positioned behind every other seat, with players turning around or sideways to reach their food/drink.

This time one player had instead pulled a table next to her, up to the rail, in the five seat before others arrived. She also had her giant purse on the floor on the other side of her.

This alone (just taking away maybe 20" of perimeter) made even a large table uncomfortable for those of us in the 2,3 and 4 seats. I was shoulder-to-shoulder with my neighbors, with no space to spare.

Trying to turn sideways just to reach my soda was a struggle. My other neighbor (who was trying to eat a messy chicken parm, not exactly the kind of thing I’d serve at a poker game but whatever) was literally dripping sauce on my elbow.

The table was on two pedestal bases, normally making legroom less of an issue. But the neighbor to my right and I both have long legs, and with the lack of wiggle room it was hard to avoid constantly bumping each other. I also was dealing with a knee issue, where it is more comfortable to extend my left leg, but due to the tight quarters and position of the pedestal this was impossible. So I was in unnecessary pain all night and left early. I am skipping the game this week.

I describe all this just as an illustration of why more isn’t necessarily better.

A big table is roomier, but dealers then have trouble pulling in bets and cards that aren’t pitched to them.

Meanwhile, all it takes is one player manspreading or otherwise taking up more than their share of space to throw everything off.

A happy medium for me is a reasonably-sized table making dealing easier, while having enough room for 8 to be comfortable.

Playing 8-handed meanwhile I find makes for a more social game, with both more hands and more comfort. Dealing to two extra players and waiting for them to act really adds up over an evening.

At 8max, you don’t have to have a 108" table, and it doesn’t matter if a few of your players are plus sized or just like to spread out.

Making players comfortable also means that they are more likely to return regularly.

Even my local casino has switched to 8max.

I still just don’t see how cramming in as many players as possible is actually good for establishing a game. It’s a game I’d try once, but not go back to.

 

[Poker Zombie]

Last night. 10 players at red table.
Player in the red shirt is 6'7".
That (and the one straight across form him) is the tightest seat at the table, because it is on the flat (every other seat gets a little more room because that's how geometry works).

If he can be comfortable at a 10-player (96") table, I'm not sure what your issue is.

I will concede that more room would be better. That's why I prefer slide-under cupholders - so you can spread out as players leave. But I would never tell my friends they are not welcome just because I wanted more elbow-room.

 

[allforcharity]

I'm quite comfortable at 6-10 players for cash. I'm spoiled because 95% of the the time I'm playing on a Chanman, which is practically standard for various home games in the city.

 

[fishandchips]

We played 6 handed last night, using 2/3 of the table length.

I use a 21" wide player width when designing a table. With 21" to 24" being the target rail allocation. Any more would be extravagant ! my chairs are 17" wide.