Cash Game Quantity of hands to be considered a good home game session? (2 Viewers)

[rainy_trails]

I’ve seen hands per hour posts, but what about hands per session? In your book, assuming you’re table is decent, how would you answer this question?

 

[jcooper911]

if we get 120+ in a night at 20 hands per hour or so (1845-0130, with 30 mins for dinner break), thats pretty good IMO

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I don't answer this question, why would it matter? Quality over quantity.

I've had a blast playing inefficiently with friends and more money changing hands, and had other sessions where hands flew by and it was terribly boring. Plus good sessions can be 3 hours, others can be 8, very different # of hands. Hands per hour is a better metric for this reason.

 

[rainy_trails]

I don't answer this question, why would it matter? Quality over quantity.

I've had a blast playing inefficiently with friends and more money changing hands, and had other sessions where hands flew by and it was terribly boring. Plus good sessions can be 3 hours, others can be 8, very different # of hands. Hands per hour is a better metric for this reason.

My question seeks perspective, so your answer is appreciated! Thank you

 

[upNdown]

I guess the answer would vary, depending on what games you’re playing. Regardless, I don’t think I’ve ever counted hands. I feel like a good session is going to last for at least four hours and move at a decent pace - that usually means a two-deck rotation to keep things moving.

 

[Legend5555]

I use a rough estimate of 25/hr at private games with a dealer. And I usually play between 4-6 hours. So about 125 hands a session.

Though I'm not sure I understand the relevance of the question compared to just hands per hour. I would need context as to why you might want more or less hands overall in a session.

As a part time for profit player, I really just care about raw number of hands played in the best lineups I can find. How many I get in a session is largely out of my control and isn't a determining factor in when/where I play.

 

[4SUMERZ]

We play for 4.5 hours. It moves along well. I've never counted the amount of hands, but guessing 20 per hour?

 

[rainy_trails]

I guess the answer would vary, depending on what games you’re playing. Regardless, I don’t think I’ve ever counted hands. I feel like a good session is going to last for at least four hours and move at a decent pace - that usually means a two-deck rotation to keep things moving.

How do you suggest implementing 2 decks? I’ve never done it with my group. One of them is 2nd best at shuffling/pitching other than me, but she’s fairly new to live poker. I don’t want her to feel like she can’t focus on the game.

 

[springbox]

Yeah I wouldn't focus too much on total hands played. I play shorter sessions than most, so we probably don't hit 100 most nights. But as long as people aren't waiting or annoyed about slow pace I think we're doing well.

How do you suggest implementing 2 decks? I’ve never done it with my group. One of them is pretty good at shuffling/pitching, but she’s fairly new to live poker. I don’t want her to feel like she can’t focus on the game.

While playing a hand with one of the decks, you have another player (most often the CO I think?) shuffle the next deck. After the hand they pass it to the next dealer who cuts it then deals. Definitely try out 2 decks, it is much nicer than having to wait for a shuffle between every hand, especially because if you're not a pro the shuffle portion can be much slower.

I usually do most of the dealing at my games, and designate one or two other players who shuffle while I'm dealing, but we're close and the stakes are low so there aren't any trust issues bigger games might have.

 

[upNdown]

How do you suggest implementing 2 decks? I’ve never done it with my group. One of them is pretty good at shuffling/pitching, but she’s fairly new to live poker. I don’t want her to feel like she can’t focus on the game.

There are two common ways of doing it - you can search "shuffle ahead" and "shuffle behind" - it's been debated to death. But the gist of it is that while a hand is being dealt, the deck used from the last hand is being shuffled. So as soon as a hand is over, the dealing of the next hand can begin. It saves a lot of time and in my experience, people get used to it pretty quickly.

 

[Taghkanic]

The games I play in typically last between 6-9 hours, and all have dealers. 150-300 hands if NLHE, less if PLO and/or Stud8 are mixed in.

I would like to get in a good 200 hands per session if possible, wherever I’m playing.

 

[rainy_trails]

There are two common ways of doing it - you can search "shuffle ahead" and "shuffle behind" - it's been debated to death. But the gist of it is that while a hand is being dealt, the deck used from the last hand is being shuffled. So as soon as a hand is over, the dealing of the next hand can begin. It saves a lot of time and in my experience, people get used to it pretty quickly.

Thanks so much! I'm going to test out which one I like more with my group

 

[Machine]

I’ve seen hands per hour posts, but what about hands per session? In your book, assuming you’re table is decent, how would you answer this question?

This isn't a metric to measure 'goodness' of a session

 

[Taghkanic]

This isn't a metric to measure 'goodness' of a session

Below or above some number would be a sign of a problem, no?

If I were invited to a game where the host said, “we usually play for 5 hours and play 5 total hands,” I wouldn’t go.

Ditto if it were 500 hands.

Those are extreme examples, obviously. But somewhere in between it stops being a problem. Question is, where?

 

[Machine]

I doubt anyone would say we play for X hours and X hands, even if the numbers were realistic, I would question why someone would delineate it.

My larger point is this, this is the wrong question, because its the wrong approach, its a meaningless number. I would argue even hands per hour is a meaningless metric, unless you are taking a rake. There are several factors for hands per hour, but seriously who cares if you're not playing NLH and / or for a rake?

If someone plays too slow for the group, that's a concern, but its not the metric for if its a quality game or not. It could become a concern if the host is unwilling to address it.

 

[upNdown]

I doubt anyone would say we play for X hours and X hands, even if the numbers were realistic, I would question why someone would delineate it.

My larger point is this, this is the wrong question, because its the wrong approach, its a meaningless number. I would argue even hands per hour is a meaningless metric, unless you are taking a rake. There are several factors for hands per hour, but seriously who cares if you're not playing NLH and / or for a rake?

If someone plays too slow for the group, that's a concern, but it’s not the metric for if it’s a quality game or not. It could become a concern if the host is unwilling to address it.

Yeah, it’s kinda the wrong question, but as the other guy said, it’s still relevant at the extremes. And granted, I’ve never asked the question. But if it’s a Holdem game, and I heard they only play 15 hands an hour, I’d wonder wonder if they were more interested in chatting and watching tv than actually playing cards.

 

[Machine]

But if it’s a Holdem game, and I heard they only play 15 hands an hour, I’d wonder wonder if they were more interested in chatting and watching tv than actually playing cards.

The nuance of my dissidence is that the extremes doesn't really exist and here is why.

Lets assume NLH, right because if scarney is being played too slow well you're playing the wrong game if your expectation is fastest play possible. Also I'll not be a dick and conclude that if you're playing NLH you're not worthy of a response because NLH isn't worthy of playing

If you're bored with the game you're in, and you're counting the number of hands you're getting in per hour, the game you're in is already not the game for you. You might try to say well its a soft game and I win in it, then you're in the slow game with fish because you're using an angle. Play more hands, be involved in more pots and enjoy the group more. If you like the people in the game and you're counting the number of hands, and you're not winning all the time, then you have a different expectation on the game and should look for another game where the players share your interest in a faster playing game. Of course this might have you asking yourself if other games play faster or not; then you might stumble onto what is the lowest range of hands that I would look for, and again you must first understand recursion before I can explain any further.

If you're on the other end of the spectrum, and you can't muck your cards fast enough and the other deck is in and pitching a new hand to you, well you're likely on your last session anyway.

 

[rainy_trails]

I doubt anyone would say we play for X hours and X hands, even if the numbers were realistic, I would question why someone would delineate it.

My larger point is this, this is the wrong question, because its the wrong approach, its a meaningless number. I would argue even hands per hour is a meaningless metric, unless you are taking a rake. There are several factors for hands per hour, but seriously who cares if you're not playing NLH and / or for a rake?

If someone plays too slow for the group, that's a concern, but its not the metric for if its a quality game or not. It could become a concern if the host is unwilling to address it.

Perfect response! These are the kind of replies I was hoping to yield out of my bizarre question