Balancing tables official rules?

[RobinK]

Hello,
 I would like to know, if there is any official rule regarding balancing the tables.

 I was making a certification test on a TDA official website. One of the question was "when do you need to balance the tables?" , the correct answer was " when
 there is less then 5 players on one table and 8 or more players on the other table". I think, that if there is only 3-4 tables left, the difference should not be more
then 1 player on the tables if it is possible. My question is: With last 2 tables left in the tournament, table1 has 5 players and table 2 has 7 players. Do I have to balance the tables, as soon as possible or ,if I expect more people from table2 to get eliminated, can I postpone the balancing for 2 -3 hands.

 I would like to know your opinions please. Thank you

   Regards   RobinK

[pokerfish]

The "official" rule is made to allow leeway in an event that is going very fast (as in bustouts each hand) or in the event that a table isn't immediately accessible to the T staff. That said, it always is best to keep the tables as even as is possible for the event you are running. Sometimes the logistics prevent that from being reality. No one will ever fault you for keeping the tables within one player.... the TDA rule is  Play will halt on any table that is three or more players short... this is not saying that it is OK to allow that to happen. Perhaps the rule is poorly written.
Jan Fisher

[RobinK]

Thank you for your answer.

 Regards

  RK

[AleaLeedsCardRoom]

I believe there is a rule somewhere in RRoP that states if you have three or more (or more than three) tables in a tournament then it is acceptable for one table to be 2 players short rather than just one.  I suspect this is to stop the TD having to constantly move players around.

[pokerfish]

It becomes a bit of a common sense answer.... if there are multiple TDs, then there is no excuse for not always balancing. If only one, then you have to use digression. Also, in an event where someone busts every hand (and this does happen in the very fast short-stacked events) it doesn't make sense to move someone until a hand is over. Actually, when there is an all-in, a player shouldn't be moved from that table regardless until that hand is over. In a perfect world, and where the TD has the time (in the cardroom for the T) he should hold up play at a table that is short even one additional player if waiting for an all-in situation to be over. Time can always be added to the clock to allow for this.
Jan Fisher

[Oddvark]

Also, in an event where someone busts every hand (and this does happen in the very fast short-stacked events) it doesn't make sense to move someone until a hand is over. Actually, when there is an all-in, a player shouldn't be moved from that table regardless until that hand is over. In a perfect world, and where the TD has the time (in the cardroom for the T) he should hold up play at a table that is short even one additional player if waiting for an all-in situation to be over. Time can always be added to the clock to allow for this.
Jan Fisher

In my opinion, if there is any possibility that a player could be eliminated during a hand in progress (not only if a player is already all-in), no one should be moved from that table until the hand is over.  So in any NL/PL game, you should not move a player to balance tables -- even if the UTG player has folded and will likely be the one to move -- until the hand is over.  You just don't know if one (or more) players will be eliminated before the hand is over, in which case it might not be necessary to move anyone.  And you don't want to move anyone unnecessarily. (Or risk running into the situation where two players are eliminated causing the table to then be three short -- one player moved prematurely, two eliminated -- and having to halt play.)

And related to the above, I don't think the TDA rule about play halting on any table that is three or more players short addresses whether balancing is required if a table is two players short.  It just says that a table that is two short can continue playing while waiting for a new player to arrive to balance the table, but once a table is three short, play must halt.  And that's the way I've seen it done in practice at tournaments trying to keep tables balanced at all times. 

As has been suggested already, the TDA rules appear to be silent as to whether balancing is required when a table is two short.  In my opinion, TDs should be expected to work on balancing tables at all times, with the understanding that balancing cannot be instantaneous -- so you let tables that are two short continue playing.  If you start with the idea that it's OK to leave tables two short because play is not required to be halted, you are obviously much more likely to end up with tables that are three short -- in which case play will have to halt.  And halting play in a tournament with escalating blinds is not fair to the players at that table.  The rules should be about ensuring fairness to all the players, and that demands that TDs make efforts to balance tables at all times.  Maybe the Rules should make that clearer.

[pokerfish]

Agreed that perhaps the rule should be more clear. The intent of the rule is exactly what you have written, about not halting play at 2 short and also not moving a player when a hand is in progress... if anyone has an idea of how to write the rule more clearly but also keeping it short and concise, I know we'd love to see it and propose it to the BOD and attendees.
Jan Fisher
BOD TDA

[Guillaume Gleize]

Hello,

Here are our tournaments rules

1- About when to balance: in a difference of 3 or more.

2- About the last 3 tables: we balance in a difference of 2 or more. (we choosed 3 tables instead 6 from the RRoP in Section 15 "Tournament" rule #17: "... With more than six tables, table size will be kept within two players. With six tables or less, table size will be kept within one player").

3- About the short table: they stop playing if one player or more wants to stop. (We use to told the players it's not allways in their advantage to stop playing: the delay may be long to move the big table player and the clock is running, bigger blinds are coming without seeing any hand ...).

4- About the big table: we wait for the hand to finish. (Frankly my floors don't allways do it: so big rush sometime!).

 

[AleaLeedsCardRoom]

In this card room we keep the tables as balanced as possible, so ideally they are never more than one player short.  I also agree with Jan that you should wait till the hand is over until you move a player.