Author Topic: Multiple "Must-move tables"  (Read 4448 times)

Brian Vickers

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 451
  • Poker Manager
Multiple "Must-move tables"
« on: September 12, 2012, 08:48:29 AM »
If you have a main game and a must-move table and you open up a 3rd game, how does your poker room handle that?  How do you handle a 4th table?
My room has had a lot of inconsistency on this matter, and I am in the process of expanding this procedure, but I would love to hear your input.
Thank you.

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Multiple "Must-move tables"
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2012, 09:29:14 AM »
We make a third table a must-move into the must-move. 

Table 1:  Main Game
Table 2: 1st must-move
Table 3: Second must-move

If there is a seat open on table 1, we would take the player who had been on table 2 the longest and move them to table 1.  Then the player who had been on table 3 the longest and move them to table 2.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 733
Re: Multiple "Must-move tables"
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2012, 09:45:26 AM »
There is also the matter of how long do you keep the must move in place once you have multiple tables up and running.  In my local Native American Casino, once the 3rd table has been open for at least an hour and there is a list of waiting players (not just call ins who have not yet arrived), the rule is that the floor may remove the must move.

Please note there are multiple outs here for a whole variety of options available to the floor.  These loopholes have and do result in different interpretations by different floor persons.  Some will close the table as soon as the hour waiting period is up, others will take the merry old time. 

My suggestion is to come up with a process/procedure that leaves less to the option of the floor, in other words, I would remove the word "may" from the above process and change it to the word "will".  If the list disappears or the third table closes, you can always make table 2 a must move again.

Chet

JasperToo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 328
Re: Multiple "Must-move tables"
« Reply #3 on: September 24, 2012, 07:32:57 AM »
Our card room does it the way Tristan outlined.  The players prefer it that way.  The way Chet outlined is unfavorable to the player that has opened a game or spent a long time in the main game because, rather than feed his game the second table could end up with all the players and the original main game can break.  Now, that is only if the floor doesn't make the second table a must move when the third table breaks.

The other problem with it depending on how the floor handles open seats, some players that haven't been in the game as long can end up in the "main" game - (again, this is only if the floor doesn't at least ask the players at table 2 if they want a table change when the "main" game has a seat).

Basically, Tristans plan is the best, it keeps the players happy.  One addition to the procedure that one might consider that the players seem to like is the OPTION to move to the main game only once.  If you say no, then you get rolled and when the list comes back around, you don't have a choice... but to move or go home.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Multiple "Must-move tables"
« Reply #4 on: September 24, 2012, 06:03:29 PM »
Brian,

 We would use the third game as the feeder table. As Tristan said; table 3 would feed table 2 and 2 would feed the main game.

 The must move tables work okay when there is plenty of action, and players waiting for seats. The problems seem to arise when the games are breaking down and getting weak, (the graveyard shifts).

 I preferred offering the open seat to the player with the most seniority at the table, then go down the list. If no player wanted to move from the first feeder table, I would go to the second feeder table and ask for a "volunteer"  starting with the most seniority at the table. If no player wanted to move, I would force the newest player from the second feeder table to move, or quit the game. Why penalize the player at the top of the list? I never liked the "must move!"

 The "main game" was not always the best game. Besides, why would I force an uninterested player to move, if another player wanted to move?

bgoods711

  • TDA Member
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Multiple "Must-move tables"
« Reply #5 on: September 29, 2012, 11:04:07 PM »
To start, anything you do will not make everyone happy.  The trick is to get the majority to be happy.  I have tried a couple different ways and I currently run two different systems.

For bigger games I run the list all the way through the table until they make it to the main table.  Example 3 games - 3 feeds 2, 2 feeds 1 (main game).  The players that are playing in the bigger games are there to play, so the movement taking place between tables is at a slower pace.

Smaller games you have more players looking for entertainment and don't have the scratch to play for very long.  Seats are opening constantly.  When I ran the must move as listed above I had more upset players becasue they were always on the move.  At times lucky to play one round before getting moved again.

So for smaller games I have only on feeder table (the last table open).  If I had 4 $1-2 NL games, table 4 would feed table 3, 2, & 1 (all 3 main tables).  Once a player has been moved out of the feeder game they will not be required to move.  For players that still would like to get to the first game or any other game I will run a table change list.

For both situations I run what I call the 8 man rule.  If the feeder table is below 8 players and the main game has 8 or more players and do not move a player until the feeder table reaches 8 players.  I will continue to move players anytime the feeder table has 8 or more players until main games are full.  If a main game falls below 8 players I will feed them a player from the feeder to keep them at 8 players.  Using this system I am able to keep the feeder game alive longer, without leaving the main tables too short.  Once there is enough seats at the main tables for all players at the feeder tables I will move them all.  At this point for the small game situation there is no longer a must move situation, and the floor is to keep table balanced.  If a new table were to open again, we would be back to the last table feeding all the main games.

Hope this makes sense.  I have a knack of complicating things, but for the most part it works out well.  Hope it helps.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3081
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Multiple "Must-move tables"
« Reply #6 on: September 30, 2012, 07:46:44 PM »
bgoods711,

 It is a little complicated but if it works for your room, without too much complaining, then keep doing it that way. My guess is, you work a swing shift and have an abundance of players. What you explained would be much more difficult to work smoothly on a graveyard shift when there are no new players waiting for a seat.

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Multiple "Must-move tables"
« Reply #7 on: October 07, 2012, 05:20:54 PM »
bgoods,

Sounds good and fair.  My only question...is it worth the effort?  We don't use must-move for 1-2 and it seems like players don't really mind.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter