9 Max $1/2 whats the point?

[Richter]

Just working off a bonus on Empire and had a bunch of $1/2 tables open. Why are they only available on $1/2? What's the point of them?

9 people vs 10 seems stupid to me.

[UncleDuke]

[ QUOTE ]
Just working off a bonus on Empire and had a bunch of $1/2 tables open. Why are they only available on $1/2? What's the point of them?

9 people vs 10 seems stupid to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was wondering the same thing (this is every Party skin, not just Empire, of course). I think most people prefer 10 players to 9, although not all, and they already cater to the people who like shorthanded games with the 6-max tables. This is very peculiar to say the least, and I'd like to see them go back to 10 also.

[toss]

I think 9 Max tends to be looser overall. I don't know though.

[Mike Haven]

More rake per hour, perhaps?

(Not that a site would bring that into their thinking, so it must be an accidental benefit for them.)

[ds914]

Exactly!\. With looser tables, you'll get to the minimum pot size for rake just as often with 9 players as you would 10.

[neotope]

Some sites like Golden Palace only have 9-max. I am guessing it is because they can generate more rake.

[Al P]

90 players = 10 tables generating rake vs. 9 tables. Plus more hands per hour.

[bpb]

Party introduced these at their last upgrade. They're only at the 1/2 and 10/20 limit at the moment.

My guess ... this is an experiment on their part to see how much more they rake per person per hour vs the 10 person tables. After they see the figures, I wouldn't be surprised to wake up one morning to find all the 10 person tables replaced with 9 max.

[JohnnyHumongous]

[ QUOTE ]
Party introduced these at their last upgrade. They're only at the 1/2 and 10/20 limit at the moment.

My guess ... this is an experiment on their part to see how much more they rake per person per hour vs the 10 person tables. After they see the figures, I wouldn't be surprised to wake up one morning to find all the 10 person tables replaced with 9 max.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's partly because they want to generate semi-full table action at these limits. Before the change 10/20 for example was almost entirely 6-max, but now with the 9-max tables a lot of people may open these tables thinking they are a little shorter than a full table... I often join them myself when there are only 3 or 4 people and I get sucked into a full 9 player game for a couple orbits. So there might be more non-short games generated, and full-table players who want to play 10/20 will be more likely to stay at Party than leave for another site.

[Guthrie]

12.5 million tables.

All heads up. All the time.

Any limit you both agree on.

All pots raked for the max.

[b0000000000m]

By 2009 I will have invented "one player Texas Hold'em," which, trust me, the sites are going to love. Maybe one or two niche sites will continue to spread heads-up. Everything else will be 1-player tables.

[wdbaker]

[ QUOTE ]
By 2009 I will have invented "one player Texas Hold'em," which, trust me, the sites are going to love. Maybe one or two niche sites will continue to spread heads-up. Everything else will be 1-player tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

You Da Man /images/graemlins/grin.gif

One Street at a Time
wdbaker Denver, Co

[Yobz]

[ QUOTE ]
By 2009 I will have invented "one player Texas Hold'em," which, trust me, the sites are going to love. Maybe one or two niche sites will continue to spread heads-up. Everything else will be 1-player tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you can clear a bonus with it, I'm in...

[smartalecc5]

lol