Author Topic: Balancing tables  (Read 3854 times)

Desi

  • TDA Member & Active Poster
  • **
  • Posts: 30
    • The Fortune Rooms
Balancing tables
« on: March 09, 2011, 08:05:10 AM »
What would be the best way to keep two cash games of the same stakes balanced?
We are a small club and usualy just have two games running. The way we currently do it is that once the first table is full(9) we start a waiting list and will open a second table with 4 players. Any new players go to table 2 before they are allowed to join table 1, and we try to keep them balanced as best we can without taking players from table 1.
When we eventualy get down to 10 players we merge tables.
The problem is, our players always want table 1 to be full, meaning table 2 will most likely always be short handed. Doing it this way would mean if there was 5 players on table 2 and a seat becomes free on table 1 the player who has been on table 2 the longest moves to table 1, table 2 is back down to 4 players and if one players leaves the game is broken again.
Would it not be better trying to keep two games running by leaving 8 players on table 1, and 5 players on table 2?
Any suggestions ???

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: Balancing tables
« Reply #1 on: March 09, 2011, 07:05:12 PM »
Desi:

There are a LOT of factors that you need to take into consideration.  It is certainly understandable that most players would rather have a full table as the blinds don't come around quite as often.  However, here are some things that the house needs to consider (this list is certainly not all inclusive, I am sure that there are other factors that others could ad):

1.  The cost of keeping enough staff for two tables.
2.  The likelihood that more players will be coming into the room within a reasonable time.  You need to know what your traffic patterns are.  Is it a week night that is usually slow after some such time or a weekend that may pick up later or ????
3.  Does your club offer reduced rake if a table is short handed?  Would that offset some of the demand for a full table?

That is all I can think of at the moment, but I don't work in a cardroom, I just play there  ;D

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Balancing tables
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2011, 05:14:19 PM »
Desi,
 Chet is correct when he says that there are a lot of factors that you need to take into consideration. It has been my experience that balancing two tables when spreading the same game is only a problem on the graveyard shift. I've worked the grave shift in a couple different casinos that had different procedures when games start to break down. One room used the "must move" table that would guarantee the designated "main game" would be full. This is what you are using. The other table was the "feeder table." The other casino would use the complete balance of both tables, so there could never be two more players at either table. There were some definite negative effects when each table got down to 6 players. Both games were weak and most players could not wait until it got down to 6 players at one and 5 at the other. We actually used to make the game 11 handed in the wee hours of the morning (stick in the extra chair). Grave shift was tough because you could bet that you were not going to pick up any new players after 2am. We always had the feeling that it was better to have one full table than two weak ones. I personally agreed and always liked balancing better than using the "must move." I felt it was a better and quicker way to get down to one solid game.
 The biggest problem with the "must move table" was the method that was used that actually forced the first player on the list to move, or quit the game. A list had to be maintained to monitor the seniority of each player at the table and we would start at the top and ask if they would like to move, if they did not, we would go to the next player and so on. The bad part was when no one wanted to move, and the player with the most time at the table was forced to move or quit the game. I never liked the must move.
« Last Edit: March 10, 2011, 10:32:39 PM by Nick C »

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Balancing tables
« Reply #3 on: March 25, 2011, 07:53:51 AM »
The thing with your last example on keeping a main game and a must move table seemed defeated by "asking" the players if they wanted to move.  A "must move" table should mean just that, "Hey Joe, your next on the move list, here is a rack, seat 5 at the main game is yours".

Most rooms let you finish the blinds if you are in them when the seat comes open but don't allow you to take the blinds at the must move table otherwise.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Balancing tables
« Reply #4 on: March 25, 2011, 11:36:23 AM »
Jasper,
 I don't know how much experience you have with must move tables but, I can tell you that when I was "forced" to use the Must Move, I found that it made more sense to move a player that wanted to move as opposed to one that didn't. I never liked to force a player and that is why I don't like the must move. We kept a list of players in the order they were seated and we would go down the list from most senority to the last player seated in that game. If no player wanted to move, I had a tough time forcing the player with the most senority at the table to do so. Sometimes they would rather quit the game and go home. I never liked it. That's my reason.









« Last Edit: March 25, 2011, 05:49:07 PM by Nick C »

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Balancing tables
« Reply #5 on: March 25, 2011, 05:46:29 PM »
I think I have plenty of experience but whenever there has been a must move it has always been a must move... players are on the seniority list and when it is their turn they are told to move.  no arguments allowed.  But they know that going in.  If it isn't set up that way then players will take advantage of it.  And if they know going in that they won't be able to take advantage of a nice guy like you then it is less likely that they will try.  And if they would rather go home than move to the main game under those circumstances, they rarely stay that long anyway.

Hey, my .03 cents (inflation and all)

Spence

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: Balancing tables
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2011, 09:22:54 PM »
Desi, what you might want to try is a combination of both a forced move and balance. In our room full rake is at 7 players. What you may be able to enforce is a must move if your second game will not fall below 7. Or try to keep your main close to full. If a full game for you is 9 handed you may let that table play as 8 handed if your feeder game has only 6. Once that 7th player comes in you force move the person with the most seniority on the list and your feeder continues to run as 6 handed. Combining these two conflicting rules may give you the best of both worlds, allowing your rake to remain at max and keeping your guests happy as well.

pdiddy729

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3
Re: Balancing tables
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2011, 03:58:33 PM »
In a 8 handed game i'm still getting FULL Rake. So, i will keep the game 8 handed. If we go down to 7 players then i will grab one from the must move game.

DocWilson

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5
Re: Balancing tables
« Reply #8 on: August 18, 2011, 03:22:11 AM »
In our pokerroom we make it a rule you can't go to another table (same stakes) if ...

a) you make your leaving table to have less players than the table you going to.
b) the table you are leaving has less players than the table you are going to.

                                                               
Exemple : table A : 7 players ... table b : 5 players : No one can leave table B to join table A
Exemple : table A : 8 players ... table B : 8 players : No one can leave table B to join table A

It' s a bit unlogical with the tables being 10 and 9 players but we stick with the rule : too many players hopping to and fro ...

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3080
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Balancing tables
« Reply #9 on: August 18, 2011, 07:47:57 AM »
DocWilson;
 That is what I prefer, also. I copied this from my earlier post on this thread. "The other casino would use the complete balance of both tables, so there could NEVER be two more players at either table"...... There were some definite negative effects when each table got down to 6 players. Both games were weak and most players could not wait until it got down to 6 players at one and 5 at the other. We actually used to make the game 11 handed in the wee hours of the morning (stick in the extra chair).