How Many People Should Be in Your Planning Poker Game? A Practical Guide for Agile Teams

Planning poker is one of the most popular estimation techniques used by agile teams to approximate the effort required to implement a user story. When teams sit down to estimate, the right number of participants can significantly influence the quality of the conversation, the accuracy of estimates, and the speed of the process. In this guide, we explore not just the numbers, but theWhy and theHow behind planning poker, so you can assemble the right mix of people for productive sessions that drive better sprint planning and smarter product decisions.

Why planning poker works and what size makes sense

At its core, planning poker combines independent estimation with collaborative discussion. Each participant reviews a story, considers the complexity, and selects a card secretly. The cards are revealed simultaneously to prevent anchoring, after which the group discusses discrepancies, clarifies uncertainties, and converges on a shared estimate. This approach offers several benefits:

Reduces bias and groupthink by encouraging independent thinking
Uncovers hidden assumptions through diverse perspectives
Facilitates faster convergence when participants share domain knowledge
Promotes shared ownership of estimates and accountability for delivery

The size of the planning poker group can influence the richness of the discussion and the efficiency of the session. Too few participants may miss crucial domain knowledge or risk biased estimates, while too many can lead to longer sessions, louder voices, and decision fatigue. The sweet spot is typically a medium-sized group that balances expertise with efficiency.

Recommended team sizes for planning poker

Industry guidance and real-world practice converge on a practical range. Here are the commonly recommended sizes, along with the rationale for each:

Small teams (3–4 participants) — This size works well for simple domains or when the product area is well understood. The session tends to be fast, decisions are quick, and there is less time spent on debate. However, the risk is that some viewpoints or technical nuances may be overlooked.
Medium teams (5–7 participants) — This is the most common size and often the sweet spot for many organizations. It offers a healthy mix of product insight, development expertise, and testing perspectives. Communication remains manageable, and the diversity of opinions helps surface hidden complexities without spiraling into lengthier discussions.
Moderately large teams (8–9 participants) — In distributed teams, cross-functional representation becomes more important. With more voices, it’s easier to capture different angles (architecture, security, accessibility, UX). The trade-off is longer conversations and the need for stricter facilitation to prevent chaos. Subgroups or breakout discussions can help manage the flow.
Very large groups (10+ participants) — Large planning poker sessions are rarely ideal, but they do happen in large enterprises or epic-level estimation scenarios. If you must involve many stakeholders, consider splitting into smaller cohorts (e.g., by feature area or domain), estimating separately, and then reconciling estimates in a joint session. This approach preserves the benefits of diverse input while maintaining efficiency.

Practical guidance from experienced agile coaches suggests aiming for 5–7 participants as the default for most user stories. When your backlog includes complex technical risks, regulatory constraints, or multi-team dependencies, you might temporarily expand to 8–9 participants with a well-structured facilitation plan. In any case, you should avoid sessions with 12 or more active estimators for routine backlog items unless you have a clear purpose and a strong facilitator who can keep the discussion focused.

Roles that typically participate in planning poker

While planning poker is a collaborative activity, different roles contribute in distinct ways:

Product Owner or Product Manager — Provides the acceptance criteria, user story context, and business value considerations. Clarifies questions and ensures alignment with the product roadmap.
Scrum Master or Facilitator — Keeps the session on track, enforces the rules, and helps the group reach consensus efficiently. This role is critical for remote or distributed teams.
Developers and Engineers — Bring technical insight into complexity, dependencies, and potential risks. They often drive the estimation with workload and implementation considerations.
Quality Assurance and Testing — Contributes perspective on test effort, automation needs, and regression risk.
UX Designers or Researchers — Highlight user experience challenges, exploration work, and research time that may affect effort estimates.
Architecture or Platform Specialists — When a story touches cross-cutting concerns (security, performance, scalability), these specialists help calibrate the technical complexity and non-functional requirements.

In smaller teams, some roles may overlap or be combined. The key is to ensure that those with the domain knowledge and delivery responsibility are present, and that the facilitator can hear from quieter voices as well as the most vocal participants.

Planning poker for remote and distributed teams

Remote planning poker has become the norm for many organizations, especially after the rise of distributed development. The core principles remain the same, but the execution requires careful tool selection and process design:

Tooling — Choose a dedicated planning poker tool or a shared virtual whiteboard. Features to look for include anonymous voting, real-time updates, story card details, and integrated chat or comments. Popular options include online planning poker platforms, collaboration suites with built-in polls, and agile project management tools with estimation boards.
Time zone considerations — Schedule sessions at times that minimize disruption for all participants. If teams are globally distributed, consider rotating sessions so no single group bears the burden every time.
Communication norms — Establish explicit norms for silent estimation, discussion formats, and decision-making. Encourage participants to articulate the reasoning behind their estimates and to raise questions or concerns early.
Asynchronous options — For very dispersed teams, asynchronous planning poker can work. Team members review the story and submit estimates within a defined window, followed by a synchronous debrief if needed.
Facilitator skills — The facilitator should be adept at reading the room (or the chat), identifying blockers, and ensuring that domain experts have a chance to speak. Visual signaling helps clarify whether the group is aligned or needs deeper discussion.

In distributed settings, keeping sessions tight and well-structured is essential. A typical remote planning poker session might last between 60 and 90 minutes for a backlog of several stories, with strict timeboxing for each item and clear next steps recorded in the backlog system.

Choosing a planning poker deck and estimate scale

The deck used in planning poker is more than a gimmick; it sets expectations about complexity and risk. The most common scale is the Fibonacci sequence:

0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34 (and beyond as needed)

The fractional steps (0.5 or ? for unknowns) can be included depending on the team's preference. The rationale for using Fibonacci numbers includes:

Non-linear growth mirrors the increasing uncertainty of larger tasks
Encourages a discussion around larger stories where estimates diverge significantly
Reduces the urge to over-precision and fosters more meaningful dialogue

Other teams experiment with alternative scales, such as:

Linear scales (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10) for simplicity
T-shirt sizes (XS, S, M, L, XL, XXL) for high-level planning or for non-functional work
Hybrid scales (e.g., 1-3-5-8-13-21 with a separate “unknown” option)

Regardless of the deck you choose, ensure your team uses it consistently and that the stories carry enough detail to estimate confidently. A well-documented backlog item with acceptance criteria, clear boundaries, and context reduces the time spent debating the estimate and increases the value of the planning poker session.

Facilitation tips to run efficient planning poker sessions

Facilitation quality often determines the success of planning poker. Here are actionable tips to keep planning poker productive and engaging:

Prepare the backlog in advance — Ensure each story has a clear description, acceptance criteria, and any relevant attachments. The better the context, the fewer rounds of clarifying questions you need during estimation.
Set expectations — Begin with a short briefing on the goal (e.g., to reach a consensus on story size within a set time) and outline the process (silent voting, followed by discussion, then re-vote).
Timebox each story — A typical planning poker item should be estimated within 5–10 minutes, depending on complexity and team size. Use a timer to enforce discipline.
Encourage think-aloud reasoning — Ask participants to verbalize the factors driving their estimates. This helps others understand constraints, risks, and hidden work.
Manage outliers gracefully — If estimates diverge (e.g., 3 vs 13), allocate time to discuss the rationale. Consider a quick probing question: “What is the main blocker that makes this story feel heavier?”
Limit dominance by any single voice — The facilitator should invite quieter team members to share their thoughts and ensure balanced participation.
Document outcomes clearly — Record the final estimate in the backlog tool and capture any decision notes, risks, or follow-up questions for the next session.
Review dependencies and risks — For stories with external dependencies or technical risks, flag them in the backlog and assign owners to address the risks before the next sprint planning.
Rotate the facilitator role — Rotating facilitation helps build shared ownership of the estimation process and keeps sessions fresh.

Common pitfalls and how to avoid them

Even experienced teams encounter recurring challenges in planning poker. Awareness and proactive mitigation can lead to smoother sessions and more accurate estimates:

Anchoring — A participant’s initial estimate can unduly influence others. Counter this with silent initial voting and explicit discussion of the reasons behind each estimate.
Groupthink — If the group moves too quickly to a single estimate, important concerns may be ignored. Encourage dissenting opinions and explore the rationale behind different numbers.
Uneven participation — Dominant personalities can overshadow others. Use a round-robin approach to ensure everyone has a chance to contribute.
Inadequate story details — Estimation becomes guesswork when backlog items lack context. Invest time in grooming stories before the planning poker session.
Overcomplication for simple stories — Not every story requires a lengthy estimation process. For small or well-understood items, a quick vote and consensus are often enough.
Misalignment with sprint planning — A great planning poker session is not an end in itself. Ensure the estimates feed directly into sprint planning and capacity planning.

Real-world scenarios: when to adapt your approach

Every team is different, and real-world projects come with their own pressures. Here are scenarios and practical adjustments that teams commonly adopt:

New teams or learning projects — Start with smaller stories and a simpler deck (e.g., 1–5), focusing on learning how your team communicates and what information is essential for estimates.
Regulatory or safety-critical work — Add explicit risk buffers and include specialists who understand constraints. Consider separate estimation sessions for risk-heavy epics.
Legacy code or unfamiliar domains — Expect higher variance in estimates. Use more rounds of discussion, bring in subject matter experts, and consider pegging estimates to risk-adjusted values.
Cross-team dependencies — When multiple teams collaborate on a feature, schedule joint planning poker with representatives from each team to harmonize estimates and dependencies.
Remote-first or fully asynchronous environments — Use asynchronous estimation diaries with clear deadlines, followed by a short synchronous refinement meeting to align on the final numbers.

As teams gain experience, the planning poker process tends to become faster and more precise. The key is to maintain discipline around preparation, participation, and documentation while continuously refining the process based on feedback from each session.