rainy_trails
Pair
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?
My question seeks perspective, so your answer is appreciated! Thank youI 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.
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.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 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.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.
Thanks so much! I'm going to test out which one I like more with my groupThere 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.
This isn't a metric to measure 'goodness' of a sessionI’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
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.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.
The nuance of my dissidence is that the extremes doesn't really exist and here is why.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.
Perfect response! These are the kind of replies I was hoping to yield out of my bizarre questionI 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.