9-handed vs. 10-handed

[Hermlord]

Obviously you play a tiny bit looser and a tiny bit more aggro with 9, but I am hard-pressed to come up with a specific example where my play would differ. Anyone have one?

If I just pretend UTG folds pf every time, will I be wrong?

[AaronBrown]

I don't like that logic. It's not terribly wrong quantitatively, but it's the wrong way to think about things.

There's no gross difference between a hand you would play in 9-hand versus 10-hand. And, as you say, the most important thing is how many people are there to act after you. But especially in first position, and to a lesser extent later, you would be more inclined to open a borderline hand.

[xxxxx]

Say you are playing with a bunch of calling stations. So more people see the flop 10 handed than 9 handed. Now you want to play more suited hands 10 handed than 9 handed. perhaps all KXs or whatever.

[RiverDood]

Not clear if we're talking limit or NL here. For limit, I think the assumption of a smaller table playing just like a big table after a UTG fold is just fine. The variation in card distribution is so minute as to be meaningless.

For NL, I'd be more confident at a 9-handed table playing A9-AJ in early/middle position as if it might be the best ace -- assuming I were first into the pot. To do that, I've got to believe that the risk of AA, KK, QQ, AK or AQ being anywhere after me is small.

At a 10-seated table with a UTG fold, I know that UTG didn't have such a hand. That means the other 9 hands aren't totally random; they have a slightly enriched chance of having such a premium hand. At a 9-seated table, there's no such distortion.

Granted, it's a tiny distortion. Does it affect play 1% of the time? 0.1% of the time? My guess is somewhere inbetween -- though a rigorous mathematical answer would be welcome. Anyway, it's a very slight goad toward playing borderline aces more aggressively at a smaller table, assuming the same number of players are yet to act.

The initial query asked for situations that hang in especially delicate balance depending on table size. I'd nominate A-middle/good kicker as such a situation. Especially in NL, where an Ace vs. Ace showdown can get hugely expensive.

Kxs doesn't seem nearly as volatile. Other opinions and analysis welcome.