P.S. Other aspects of the “infrastructure” of poker I would agree have more to do with economics, largely driven by the casino industry, than with actual usability.
The main example I’ve been writing about is the emergence of 9/10-handed racetrack tables with an additional seat for a dealer for poker as the standard. I consider this a very undesirable development from both usability and gameplay standpoints. This backward standard would never have been replicated in home games if not for the gaming industry making it commonplace, for their own (not very rational) economic reasons. But unfortunately, a lot of hosts just go for a giant racetrack table in an effort to be “like a real casino game.”
For most of the history of poker, the game was played 4-6 handed—at most 7-8 if the game variant allowed—at square or round tables. Even into the 1950s and 1960s, when you look at photos of people playing poker it is rare to see a “full ring” game.
But 9/10-handed games start creeping in as the gaming industry became more consolidated and conformist. The expansion of the number of players and the use of these giant racetrack tables also coincided with the slow demise of drawing games in favor of no limit hold-’em. You’re not playing most draw or even stud games with 9/10 players.
NLHE allowed casinos to cram in more and more players per table, while having the same or fewer dealers. The industry thought that this would net them more money per hour. So these very long, crowded tables became the standard, even though both the gameplay and the comfort level suffers from it.
There is an economic counterargument to be made that even with the added cost of a few extra tables and a few more dealers per room, casinos would actually rake more money from poker if they used *smaller* tables accommodating fewer players per table. Shorter-handed games produce more hands per hour, and therefore more rake. 9/10-handed games mean that each hand takes more time.
I would like to hope that the standard of giant tables with 9+players each may evolve again as 4- and 5-card games continue to become more popular.
The main example I’ve been writing about is the emergence of 9/10-handed racetrack tables with an additional seat for a dealer for poker as the standard. I consider this a very undesirable development from both usability and gameplay standpoints. This backward standard would never have been replicated in home games if not for the gaming industry making it commonplace, for their own (not very rational) economic reasons. But unfortunately, a lot of hosts just go for a giant racetrack table in an effort to be “like a real casino game.”
For most of the history of poker, the game was played 4-6 handed—at most 7-8 if the game variant allowed—at square or round tables. Even into the 1950s and 1960s, when you look at photos of people playing poker it is rare to see a “full ring” game.
But 9/10-handed games start creeping in as the gaming industry became more consolidated and conformist. The expansion of the number of players and the use of these giant racetrack tables also coincided with the slow demise of drawing games in favor of no limit hold-’em. You’re not playing most draw or even stud games with 9/10 players.
NLHE allowed casinos to cram in more and more players per table, while having the same or fewer dealers. The industry thought that this would net them more money per hour. So these very long, crowded tables became the standard, even though both the gameplay and the comfort level suffers from it.
There is an economic counterargument to be made that even with the added cost of a few extra tables and a few more dealers per room, casinos would actually rake more money from poker if they used *smaller* tables accommodating fewer players per table. Shorter-handed games produce more hands per hour, and therefore more rake. 9/10-handed games mean that each hand takes more time.
I would like to hope that the standard of giant tables with 9+players each may evolve again as 4- and 5-card games continue to become more popular.
