PokerTDA

POKER TOURNAMENT RULES QUESTIONS & DISCUSSIONS => Poker TDA Rules & Procedures Questions, General => Topic started by: K-Lo on June 04, 2012, 10:04:21 PM

Title: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: K-Lo on June 04, 2012, 10:04:21 PM
Just taking a poll here to see if we all agree:

First, table with 8 seats.  Seat 1 is vacant.  Seat 6 has just become vacant, the player having busted out on the previous hand, leaving 6 players at the table.  The button is in seat 5, and seat 7 has posted a Big Blind, with no blind in seat 6.  In summary, the table looks as follows:

Seat 1 (vacant)
Seat 2 (occupied)
Seat 3 (occupied)
Seat 4 (occupied)
Seat 5 (occupied - Button)
Seat 6 (vacant - 'dead' sb)
Seat 7 (occupied - BB)
Seat 8 (occupied)

The hand is played out and the player in seat 7 is eliminated, leaving seats 1, 6, & 7 vacant.  The button is moved into seat 6.  Dealer is washing the deck, and you, the TD, arrive with a player from another table in order to balance tables.

Question 1:  Where are you going to seat the new player, and which player(s) will post a blind?

Question 2:  (see post #4 below)
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: ew2484 on June 04, 2012, 11:56:26 PM
I could be mistaken, but i believe the player will take seat 7 and post 1 BB for that hand. Next hand button will not move, and seats 7/8 and will take small/big blind
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: Nick C on June 05, 2012, 06:26:22 AM
Using the dead button rule the new player would be seated in seat #1.

    Seat 6 dead button
    Seat 7 dead SB
    Seat 8 BB
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: K-Lo on June 05, 2012, 07:51:32 AM
Using the dead button rule the new player would be seated in seat #1.

    Seat 6 dead button
    Seat 7 dead SB
    Seat 8 BB

And a follow-up question:

Question 2:  Same situation as original question, except seat 1 is already occupied, and only seats 6 & 7 are vacant, with button already moved into seat 6.  Where are you going to seat the new player, and which player(s) will post a blind (and if applicable, is new player dealt in or not)?
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: Brian Vickers on June 05, 2012, 02:20:06 PM
And a follow-up question:

Question 2:  Same situation as original question, except seat 1 is already occupied, and only seats 6 & 7 are vacant, with button already moved into seat 6.  Where are you going to seat the new player, and which player(s) will post a blind (and if applicable, is new player dealt in or not)?

The "classic" way of doing it would be in your first example to have the new player in seat 1 as Nick as stated.  In your 2nd example it would be to have the new player enter in seat 6 on the dead button spot and be dealt in right away.

However, I believe in both examples I would (and this is probably not the most mainstream approach) seat the new player in seat 7 as the big blind only, then the following hand I would keep the button where it was, with seat 7 being the sb and seat 8 being the bb. 
I would consider this the more "progressive" way of doing it (as it seems to be trending this way and is becoming more acceptable). 
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: Nick C on June 05, 2012, 04:29:03 PM
I would have put the new player on the button (seat 6) and dealt him out one hand...but honestly I like Brian's suggestion.
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: K-Lo on June 06, 2012, 07:11:14 AM
Hi Nick and Brian:

Thanks for your input.  Here are my comments:

I usually balance the tables as Nick has suggested - in the first example, placing the new player in seat #1, and in the second example, placing the new player on the button and having him sit out one hand (following RROP that a player moving into the button must wait for button to pass). 

I think you will agree that the rules do support the above method.  When the button moves into seat 6 and seat 8 is due to take the big blind next, seat 7 is due to take the small blind.  The rules explicitly set out that the new player enters into the worst position "which is never the small blind" - if we were to allow a player to sit in seat 7 and post a big blind, despite the button being in neighbouring seat 8, I don't think this part of the rule would ever have any meaning because you could always move an incoming player into what would otherwise be the small blind's position and having him post a single big (which is effectively the alternative way Brian mentioned).  All I am saying here is that the rules on balancing when taken as a whole seem, at least to me, to support the above "classic" way of balancing because it makes specific mention to the worst position never being the small blind.

That being said, I agree that the "progressive" way is indeed gaining traction, and if it weren't for the fact that the TDA rule mentions "never the small blind" in passing, this alternative way of balancing would appear to make complete sense because it does force the incoming player to post a Big Blind as soon as possible, and it is permissible to post a single big blind.

My original reason for bringing up this balancing scenario is this - I started trying Brian's "progressive" way (i.e. in both situations, seat the new player in seat 7 as BB only with button in seat 6, and then on next hand, new player is SB and seat 8 is BB with button remaining in seat 6) and thought it made complete sense, until I realized that in two particular scenarios that I mentioned where seat 6 is vacant, the player in seat 5 would effectively be acting last as the button not once, not twice, but three times!  When the button was in seat 5, he was the button so he acted last.  When the button moved to seat 6 for the next hand (which would be empty since you've seated the new player in seat 7), seat 5 will act last again.  And then when the button stays in the same position on the next hand, seat 5 will act last yet again!  Therefore, in order to get the new player to post BB right away, we have given one player the advantage over the entire table, allowing him to effectively be the button three hands in a row.  I'm not sure this is a completely fair trade-off.

So now I'm leaning towards going back to the "classic" way...  Any thoughts?
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: Nick C on June 06, 2012, 12:28:11 PM
K-Lo,
 If you want my two cents; you will always have problems whenever multiple players are eliminated or moved with any existing system. There are advantages and disadvantages to the moving button and the dead button rules. Tournament poker really creates the problems because we don't want players to miss any hands. Why not just force the moved player to post one BB from the SB or the button if that's where he must go? There would be two BB's, so what's the big deal?
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: diz475 on June 20, 2012, 12:14:45 PM
you put the player in the dead small blind spot (seat 7), he posts the bb the button stays in seat 6 for the next hand and the new player is now the sb.
as far as the player in seat 5 being the last to act two hands its the same as if it was a dead button anyway,
     you can do this anytime the bb went bust the hand before you seat the new player



8:   Balancing Tables

A: In flop and mixed games when balancing tables, the player who will be big blind next will bebi moved to the worst position, including taking a single big blind when available, even if that means the seat will have the big blind twice. Worst position is never the small blind. In stud-only events, players will be moved by position (the last seat to open up at the short table is the seat to be filled). The table from which a player is moved will be as specified by a predetermined procedure. Play will halt on any table that is 3 or more players short
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: K-Lo on June 21, 2012, 06:15:45 AM
you put the player in the dead small blind spot (seat 7), he posts the bb the button stays in seat 6 for the next hand and the new player is now the sb.
as far as the player in seat 5 being the last to act two hands its the same as if it was a dead button anyway,
     you can do this anytime the bb went bust the hand before you seat the new player

Actually, seat 5 would be last to act for three hands in the example with the new player being introduced into seat 7, not just two.  Do you agree that it might be unfair?
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: diz475 on June 21, 2012, 11:27:11 AM
if you leave seat 7 open it will be a dead button anyway so seat 5 gets last action 3 times both ways, thats why you put the new player in the worst spot on the game ( seat 7) even it the 1 seat is open
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: K-Lo on June 22, 2012, 09:51:01 AM
This is true for the first scenario, but not for the second where the alternative is to put the player on the button.

I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense to put the player in seat 7 - it does seem to catching on and it is consistent with the rule saying that the new player should be put into the worst position.  However, the same rule also says that "Worst position is never the small blind".  What's the point of having that clarification in the rule if you can always seat a player adjacent to the button and thus there is never a "small blind" position to worry about any more?  (This is probably a subtle point about the rule language, which I admit is perhaps not worth debating).
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: diz475 on June 22, 2012, 11:46:49 AM
but the button cant be the worst position
and a doesent a player assume the rights and responsibilities of the position that he is seated in
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: JasperToo on June 22, 2012, 04:02:53 PM
but the button cant be the worst position
and a doesent a player assume the rights and responsibilities of the position that he is seated in

The button is the worst seat AVAILABLE for that table at that time.  And the part about assuming the rights and responsibilities is not in this rule, it is in the rule concerning breaking tables not just balancing them.

I agree with seating the player in seat #1 in the first scenario and placing him in seat #6 on the button for the second and having him wait one hand.

Yes, K-lo, I agree there are times that seat #5 would have the advantage far more than anyone deserves and i believe you should keep the button moving.  So I don't think the "progressive" way is a good one.  I think the idea behind it is to make that player that has moved post his blind as soon as possible.  But let's not forget, that poor shmuck just got pulled from his familiar table to an unfamiliar one so if he happens to be lucky enough to sit down on the button and wait for a hand play a round then good for him.  It won't happen that often...
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: diz475 on June 23, 2012, 11:48:03 AM
Situation 1, seat 7 is the correct based on the even if the same seat has the big blind twice.

If you use seat 1 you have the same advantage for seat 5 youíre talking about.

As far as the rights and responsibilities of the seat not being in the balancing tables rule is because you would never have to seat a player on the button or in the small blind if you use the balancing rule correctly

So situation 2 seat 7 is correct

And yes seat 5 gets an advantage but if the situation was at 2 tables and you couldnít balance then he gets last action 3 times
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: EvilWeenie on June 25, 2012, 06:37:50 PM
My variation may have been addressed but I didn't see it specifically so I'll throw it out here:

Seat 1  (occupied)
Seat 2  (occupied)
Seat 3  (occupied)
Seat 4  (occupied) Button
Seat 5  (occupied) SB
Seat 6  (occupied) BB
Seat 7  (occupied)
Seat 8  (occupied)
Seat 9  (occupied)
Seat 10 (occupied)

In one hand players 5 and 6 are eliminated.  I need to move a player to this table and I see two possible ways to do so.

A.) Button moves to Seat 5 and the new player moves to seat 4 (cutoff) and is dealt into the next hand.

II.) Button stays and I put the new player in seat 6 and they come in as the BB with a dead SB.
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: Nick C on June 25, 2012, 07:15:01 PM
TW:

 I would say, under current rules, that the new player would move to seat 5 (dead button), seat 6 would be a dead small and seat 7 the BB.  The new player would sit out one hand. There were other suggestions, or solutions that would also work, possibly better, but for now, I think this is what current rules dictate.
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: EvilWeenie on June 25, 2012, 07:27:32 PM
What if Seat 4 was also eliminated on that same hand?  Would the button then move and the player come in on Seat 4?
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: Nick C on June 26, 2012, 06:49:07 AM
Yes. Try to focus on the next player in line for the big blind. That is the best way to determine where the button goes, and where the new player should be seated.
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: diz475 on June 26, 2012, 01:13:25 PM
TW:

 I would say, under current rules, that the new player would move to seat 5 (dead button), seat 6 would be a dead small and seat 7 the BB.  The new player would sit out one hand. There were other suggestions, or solutions that would also work, possibly better, but for now, I think this is what current rules dictate.

no Nick this is not correct under the current rules, how is seat 5 the worst positon for the new player


 the anwser is still the same, new player in the 6 seat with the BB button in the 5

next hand button stays in seat 5 seat 6 now the SB 7 is the BB


Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: Nick C on June 26, 2012, 01:22:59 PM
K-Lo:

       you want to help us out here? Either I don't understand the question or I've been doing it wrong for quite some time.
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: K-Lo on June 26, 2012, 02:32:25 PM
Nick:  In my opinion, I don't think you've been doing it wrong, and I also don't think that diz is doing it wrong either.  Earlier in this thread, Brian probably made the point the best: that there is a "classic" way of doing it, and the "progressive" way of doing it.  You and I are probably more accustomed to seeing it done the "classic" way, and diz is arguing for the "progressive" way. 

I think that confusion arises because there's been a mish-mash of rules from different rule sets that TDs have tried to apply over time to the 'challenge' of balancing tables.  To make the problem worse, we probably worked through the period where the popular method for button movement evolved from "moving button" to "dead button", but no one bothered to explicitly define how the act of balancing tables should differ depending on which button movement was being used. 

In this example, diz can justify seating the new player in seat 6 with the BB, and placing the button in seat 5, because he relies on a part of the current TDA rule that says that the player should be seated in the "worst position" and that the same seat can "take the big blind twice".  This is justifiable, but in doing so, he has to ignore the next part of the rule that says "Worst position is never the small blind".  Note that if the button is in seat 5 and the new player is in neighboring seat 6 as the new BB, he is effectively requiring a "dead small".  But note:  there is no seat reserved for the small blind in the "progressive" approach. This is NOT the classic "one big blind only case" where the previous BB busted leaving the seat for the player that ought to have been the SB next vacant.  It is arguable whether it has ever been acceptable to have a "one big blind" scenario where there is not even a vacated seat designated for the "dead" small blind. 

To make things even more complicated, Robert's Rules states that in a tournament, "new players to a table as a result of balancing tables are dealt in immediately unless they are in the small blind or button position, where they must wait until the button has passed to the player on their left".  If you can balance a table by eliminating the small blind's seat at the new table altogether, then what would be the point of this rule?  What's the point of saying "worst position is never the small blind" in the TDA rule if you can always simply eliminate the small blind's seat altogether?

Here's another take on the same situation.  If Seat 5 is vacant and destined to be a "dead" button and seat 6 is vacant, and diz says that the new player should be placed in seat 6 because it is the worst position, why stop there?  Why not simply put the new player in seat 5, have the new player post a BB, and move the button back to seat 4?  If one is OK with eliminating the SB's seat altogether, then why move the button at all?  We don't do this because most people expect the button to move at least one position.  In the same way, I think most people expect that there should also be a seat reserved for the small blind, even if a small blind is not actually posted because the seat was recently vacated.

Confused?  Me too.  All I am saying, it is too simple to say that either the progressive way or the classic way is "clearly" suggested by the current rules.  It is not clear.  Some will argue that the "classic" method fails to put new players in the "worse" position possible, while others will argue that the "progressive" way requires eliminating a seat to be assigned to the small blind which is not justified anywhere in the rules.  I agree with you Nick that there are various solutions that could work, possibly better, and at least both ways are probably justifiable.
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: Nick C on June 26, 2012, 05:56:18 PM
Gentlemen:
 TDA tournament rules are for the dead button only. There could be a dead small or a dead button, or both. The SB seat is not eliminated and a new player in the SB position needs to sit out two hands and a new player moved to the button must wait one hand. It would be rare when players moved to a table would be forced to occupy the SB or the button. The table would have to be full.

 K-Lo, I'm not sure I'm following you on this one. I think you might be a bit confused about Robert's Rules. The SB seat is never eliminated.

Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: K-Lo on June 26, 2012, 06:19:19 PM
In diz's example, where he said you've been doing it wrong, the button is in seat 5, and he moves the new player into seat 6 to take the BB.  Where is the seat for the "dead" sb?  I am saying that in the "progressive" approach, no seat is designated for the SB, and that this would have probably been considered odd, traditionally, in a dead button rotation.  This is probably why old TDs like us have been doing it the "classic" way for so long.
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: diz475 on June 27, 2012, 01:27:52 PM
Nick what Iím basing my way of balancing on is in the rule it says

Will be moved to the worst position including taking a single big blind when available even if that means the seat will have the big blind twice.

So that tells me if it is a dead SB then I can put the new player there, he posts a single BB and that seat has the BB twice

I think what this does is allows you to balance the table and you never have to make the new player wait a hand to be dealt in.

And why balance the table if youíre going to make him wait two hands to be dealt in,

And K-lo I see your point of classic way and progressive but the TDA rule only has one way.

All of these scenarios are rare (especially the second in the thread because you have to get a player there before another hand is dealt) the first is more likely because 1 player went down on each of 3 hands
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: Nick C on June 27, 2012, 04:04:34 PM
diz475,
 All I can tell you is, I've never had any problem moving players in over 30 years of tournament play. I will also tell you that I've never been in a game where any player intentionally got the BB twice in a row unless there was a redraw for seats. When I move players I will take a player two seats from getting the BB and move him to the worst seat (closest to BB) as possible. In the event a hand moves quickly there is still time to move the player into the BB position.
 There are so many issues with other rules for poker that I find it non-productive to try and sort out a seating assignment that is difficult to understand, thus virtually impossible to explain. I will also say that in all my years, I've never moved two players to a table that had only the SB and button positions open.
 To try to clarify my reasoning for my earlier example, the worst position is the closest to the BB, so if 2 seats are open, one being the SS and the other the button, the player is moved to the button position and waits one hand.
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: chet on June 27, 2012, 05:30:26 PM
Nick: 

You need to read the sentence in bold again.   Diz did not say the player would get the BB twice in a row and neither does the rule.  Diz and the rule both say the seat might get the BB two hands in a row.  There is a significant difference.

Chet
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: Nick C on June 27, 2012, 05:38:31 PM
Chet,
 Thanks for the info but, I don't get it.
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: K-Lo on June 28, 2012, 07:50:36 AM
Diz: I just think I would be more convinced that the TDA rule actually supported only your method IF the rule actually said that the new player would be moved to the worst position including taking a single big blind when available even if that means the seat will have the big blind twice AND even if that means no seat is reserved for the small blind.  I just don't know of any situation where the rules permit only one blind to be posted but there is no seat reserved for the "dead" small blind.

I am more inclined to believe that the TDA rule permits both ways of balancing, at least as it is currently written.
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: chet on June 28, 2012, 09:25:16 AM
Guys: 

I am certainly not an expert when it comes to running MTTs, but it seems to me that we are spending a lot of time discussing something that comes up infrequently at best.  In my experience the 'classic' method of balancing has always worked well.  If a player has to wait one hand so be it.  Personally, I think we have more problems with players delaying their arrival at a new table which really screws things up.

Chet
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: Nick C on June 28, 2012, 10:52:02 AM
Chet,
 That is the reason I take the under the gun +1 and move him to the new table. If there is any stall it should not take two hands to complete the move. You're right, there is no way that everyone will agree. How can we when very few can understand the rule, as written?
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: K-Lo on July 03, 2012, 09:43:16 PM
Ok... Excuse me while I beat this dead horse, so to speak...

8 handed table, all 8 seats are occupied.

Button in seat 1, small blind seat 2, big blind seat 3.

a) Hand is played out, and the players in seats 3 and 6 bust.  Player is brought in to balance the tables before next hand begins.  Where is the button, where does the new player go (seat 3 or seat 6), and who posts the blind(s) for the next hand?

IF you sat the new player in seat 3 in question a), then answer the next question.

b) The next hand is played out and the Big Blind busts out.  Another player is brought in to balance the tables, before the next hand begins.  Where is the button, where does this new player go, and who posts the blind(s) for the next hand?
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: Nick C on July 05, 2012, 09:33:54 AM
K-Lo,

 a)  Button to seat 2, dead SB in seat 3, BB in seat 4, new player in seat 6.

 b)  Dead Button seat 3, Dead SB seat 4, BB seat 5, new player occupies the dead button position in seat 3 and must sit out one hand.

You've got me thinking too much, take it easy on me will ya! ;D I probably screwed something up again.
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: chet on July 05, 2012, 10:16:35 AM
Nick:  You need to re-read the 2nd situation again.  K-Lo said IF you put the new player in seat 3 in part a, then.......

You said that there is a dead button in seat 3, but that seat is occupied (it can still be a dead button).  Where I have a problem is that you said you would put the new player in seat 3.  Is he going to sit on the existing players lap?  How do you enforce the one player to a hand rule?  If I am the existing player in seat 3 and your bring over someone like Vanessa Rousso, she can sit on my lap anytime. :) 

Chet
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: K-Lo on July 05, 2012, 11:04:38 AM
I understood what Nick meant - he just answered the question for b) even though he didn't have to.

Nick's method is consistent with the way that I am accustomed to doing it -- the "classic way" as it were.

Now let's hear from someone who does it the other way...
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: Nick C on July 05, 2012, 12:04:08 PM
Chet & K-Lo,
 
 The way I see it, there's the wrong way and our way.

 Chet, I brought the player to seat 6 in the first scenario, so seat 3 is empty.
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: diz475 on July 05, 2012, 08:00:31 PM
ok K-lo a little extreme here for one thing you are very fast at getting new players to a game before a dealer can get out the next hand

 but i would put the new player in seat 3 for A and if i go buy the rule seat 3 for B because,
the rule is will be moved to the worst position, including taking a single big blind when available, even if that means the seat will have the big blind twice

dont you agree that if your senario if you put the new player in the 6 seat, next hand seat 2 button (last action) seat 3 dead small seat 4 BB
next hand dead button in seat 3 seat 2 still last action

if i moved a player and put him in seat 3 he posts a single bb because it is available, even it that means the seat will have the big blind twice seat 2 is the button(last action) seat 3 big
next hand button stays in seat 2 still last action, seat 3 small seat 4 big
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: K-Lo on July 05, 2012, 09:38:11 PM
Diz - So you sit the new player in seat 3, he is BB, seat 2 has the button, and there is no seat for the SB. 

Let's say that on the very next hand, seat 3, who just got seated as the BB, busts.  So am I correct to characterize your position as being that if another new player is brought in before the dealer gets out the next hand, the new player sits in seat 3 again (& posts the BB), and the button stays in seat 2 again?

Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: diz475 on July 06, 2012, 10:04:23 AM
Yes
Is that any different then a dead button in seat 3, seat 2 is last action both ways and my way or the TDA way the new player is in the worst position, including taking a single big blind when available, even if that means the seat will have the big blind twice(or three times)

buy the TDA saying taking a single big blind even if that means the seat will have the big blind twice
tells me you do not have to have a seat reserved for the small blind

I donít see any other way to interpret the rule

yes you can seat the player in seat 6 but is that the worst position available, No
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: Nick C on July 06, 2012, 11:58:07 AM
diz475,

 I'll admit there are some TDA Rules that I have a tough time figuring out. This is one of them. I do it the way I described because I never had a problem with it, and I understand what I'm doing. How could I move a player to a new seat, at a new table, if I couldn't explain why he's in that seat, or how I justified the move.

 I still don't understand;...even if it means he will have the BB twice ???  I don't want to sound ungrateful but, spare me the explanation, My mind can only digest so much of this critical information ;D 
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: K-Lo on July 06, 2012, 08:25:10 PM
Yes
Is that any different then a dead button in seat 3, seat 2 is last action both ways and my way or the TDA way the new player is in the worst position, including taking a single big blind when available, even if that means the seat will have the big blind twice(or three times)

buy the TDA saying taking a single big blind even if that means the seat will have the big blind twice
tells me you do not have to have a seat reserved for the small blind

I donít see any other way to interpret the rule

Thanks for the clarification. As I understand it, according to the rule as you interpret it, whenever the button is in seat 2 and seat 3 is empty, you will seat the new player in seat 3 regardless of what other seats at the table might be vacant.  And if on the next hand seat 3 busts, you will seat the next new player again in seat 3, and seat 2 gets the button again.  And theoretically, this could happen two, three, or four or even more times in a row, and every single time, the new player will sit in seat 3, and the button stays in seat 2.  

Here are the reasons I don't prefer this method:

1.  The button can potentially stall in one particular seat and with one particular player.  The potential for this to happen is not as rare as one might think.  In my experience, at late stages of certain tournaments where everyone is very short-stacked, the BB tends to gets eliminated a lot.  Tables can get very short and may be forced to hold until a players is brought in to balance them;  or in smaller venues, it might not take long to move a player from one table to another.  So, if the BB keeps getting eliminated, and if we always place a new player in the same seat, the button will remain with the same player over and over again.  Even if we no longer use a moving button movement, to me, I don't think it's fair to have the button stalled in one seat.

2.  If the intention of the rule is to place a new player in the way you describe, then in my view, the rule should say that the new player "shall take the next vacant seat after the button" and may post a single BB if there are no intervening players between him and the button.  This would be a lot clearer than the vague phrase "worst position at the table".

3. TDA rules also clearly say that tournaments will use a "dead button".  In a dead button movement, "The big blind is posted by the player due for it, and the small blind and button are positioned accordingly, even if this means the small blind or the button is placed in front of an empty seat..." (RROP s.16.1).  If the new player in seat 3 is considered to be the BB, then the SB must be positioned accordingly.  Clearly, seat 2 is not going to be the SB here, after already having posted it.  I disagree that the TDA rule saying "including taking a single big blind when available, even if that means the seat will have the big blind twice" necessarily means that you do not have to have a seat reserved for the small blind.  There is no reason why the balancing rule should take precedence over the dead button rule.  If the balancing rule was meant to override the dead button rule, the rule should say so explicitly.  

4.  Finally, there are still many scenarios where the highlighted wording in the balancing rule comes into play, but the properties of a dead button rotation are still preserved.  Most involve situations where there is at least one existing vacant seat before the player who busts out.  For example:

Seat 1 (occupied)
Seat 2 (occupied-button)
Seat 3 (occupied- SB)
Seat 4 (vacant)
Seat 5 (occupied- BB)
Seat 6 (occupied)
Seat 7 (occupied)
Seat 8 (occupied)

Now, the player in seat 5 busts.  I have absolutely no problem with placing a new player into seat 5 in this situation when balancing, and thus seat 5 will indeed "have the big blind twice".  The button has moved to seat 3, and seat 4 will host the "dead" SB.  Therefore, the button continues to move around the table without stalling, the properties of a dead button rotation are satisfied with the SB in front of an empty seat, and the new player indeed "takes a single BB with the same seat having had the big blind twice", thus satisfying the rule.    

In my opinion, the "worst position" in the balancing rule should never be one which would result in there not being a seat reserved for the small blind.  Seating a new player immediately after the button without the SB being in front of a seat might be the "progressive" way, but not the optimal way, in my view.
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: Nick C on July 07, 2012, 01:25:41 AM
K-Lo,

  Your suggestion makes the situation simple to understand. It is certainly worth repeating, so I will:... " the rule should say that the new player "shall take the next vacant seat after the button" and may post a single BB if there are no intervening players between him and the button."

 Perfect! I also think this should be moved to the suggested rule changes.

PLEASE NOTE: I misunderstood exactly what K-Lo was referring to in his prior response. His answer is perfect for the method used by diz475. I however would not support it and prefer the old standard that I've always used. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Maybe I should refrain from posting anything at 4am in the future ::)
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: K-Lo on July 07, 2012, 03:49:48 AM
K-Lo,

  Your suggestion makes the situation simple to understand. It is certainly worth repeating, so I will:... " the rule should say that the new player "shall take the next vacant seat after the button" and may post a single BB if there are no intervening players between him and the button."

 Perfect! I also think this should be moved to the suggested rule changes.

Thanks... but to be clear, it is not a rule change that I personally would support, mainly for the reason I set out in point #1.  I'd rather do it the "classic" way as you and I are used to.  But if everyone else thought diz's way was best, then the language should indeed be clarified.  As the rule currently stands, I think you can argue that either way is accommodated - it all depends whether you think that you must always put the SB in front of a seat or not.
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: Nick C on July 07, 2012, 07:14:13 AM
K-LO,

 You are correct. For some reason I was thinking your reference was about seating the new player in the next vacant seat after the BB, not the button.

 Sorry about that.

 Perhaps you can clarify what is meant by; #8 Balancing Tables A:...even if that means taking the big blind twice? How does that happen? Is it twice in a succession? I don't get it.

 
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: K-Lo on July 07, 2012, 08:59:12 AM
Perhaps you can clarify what is meant by; #8 Balancing Tables A:...even if that means taking the big blind twice? How does that happen? Is it twice in a succession? I don't get it.
It is saying that it is possible the physical seat/chair can be host to the big blind two hands in a row.  

Work through the example I gave in point #4.  After the player in seat 5 busts out, and you bring a new player in, where would you put him, and where will the button/SB/BB be?  
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: Nick C on July 07, 2012, 04:35:54 PM
K-Lo,

 Thanks! I finally figured it out! Or I should say, you explained it better than anyone ever did. Some day, when I have more time, I'll figure out a way to explain the unusual conditions that create the situation for the BB going to the same seat on back-to-back hands.
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: diz475 on July 08, 2012, 01:13:37 PM
k-lo you continue to be concerned about who has last action if i leave no open seat for the small blind and let the button stall in a seat for one hand but if there is a seat open for a dead small then the button will be dead the next hand anyway and the same player will have last action.

both ways same player has last action two times

 i really wish we could get some more input on the situations from someone other then me you and nick because i can see you just dont agree with me that this is how this rule was ment to be used.

i guess the rule could say even if the same seat has the BB twice as long as a seat is reserved for the dead small [/b] blind, then i would be with you,  but it does not
Title: Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
Post by: K-Lo on July 08, 2012, 07:37:13 PM
k-lo you continue to be concerned about who has last action if i leave no open seat for the small blind and let the button stall in a seat for one hand but if there is a seat open for a dead small then the button will be dead the next hand anyway and the same player will have last action.

both ways same player has last action two times

 i really wish we could get some more input on the situations from someone other then me you and nick because i can see you just dont agree with me that this is how this rule was ment to be used.

i guess the rule could say even if the same seat has the BB twice as long as a seat is reserved for the dead small [/b] blind, then i would be with you,  but it does not

You say that I continue to be concerned about who has last action, but that is only one factor;  my main concern is that in a dead button rotation, the SB must be positioned accordingly. This is in Robert's Rules, this is in the WSOP rules, and others.  It makes sense to me that a seat must be reserved for the small blind, and we don't put a new person there because "the worst position is never the small blind"!  With all due respect, I don't think you can simply ignore the dead button rule (TDA Rule 29), and not save a seat for the SB.  You can still have situations where the same seat will have the BB twice yet there is a seat still reserved for the SB.  

You're right, the rule does not say "if the same seat has the BB twice as long as a seat is reserved for the dead small blind".  But it also does not say "if the same seat has the BB twice even if it means there is no seat reserved for the dead small blind".  Yes, we do need more input on this situation, because right now, merely reiterating the same phrase in the rule bolded over and over again is not enough to persuade me.  So let's just agree to disagree, then.