Would you rather play with a full table or an empty one?
depends a lot on the mood for me, but i always find myself thinking about risk management first. with a full table, you get way fewer hands per hour but get to pick up more info from how people play, plus the pots are bigger and there’s more margin for error. on the other hand, sitting down at an empty table or with just one or two people, everything moves way faster, but you’ve got to keep sharp since the blinds come around quick and things get swingy.
does anyone here prefer the speed and heads-up aspect over the slower, info-rich grind of a full table? curious how you weigh the tradeoff, especially if you’re into steady profit rather than just chasing the action.
14
i'd take the fuller table for steady profit, more room to fold, use position and pick up info from showdowns. short-handed only wins out for me if i've got a clear postflop edge (that's the bit i'd need to be sure of), blinds come around quicker so you have to defend and attack wider. bigger pots don't cover mistakes either. i'm getting fewer hands with better reads at a full table, short-handed i'm playing more hands with thinner margins on decisions
i'd take a full table. i can fold thin spots for 2 or 3 orbits and still read ranges from showdowns. heads-up at 70-90 hands an hour bumps variance up, and a couple of thin river mistakes eat into the gains
folding that long gets tedious, do you set a loss limit heads-up or just leave when you start making those river mistakes?
90 feels rushed
Steady profit lol