Author Topic: Balancing Tables - Clarification  (Read 25175 times)

EvilWeenie

  • Guest
Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
« Reply #15 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.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3293
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
« Reply #16 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.

EvilWeenie

  • Guest
Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
« Reply #17 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?

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3293
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
« Reply #18 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.

diz475

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
« Reply #19 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



Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3293
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
« Reply #20 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.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
« Reply #21 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.

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3293
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
« Reply #22 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.


K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
« Reply #23 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.

diz475

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 48
Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
« Reply #24 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

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3293
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
« Reply #25 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.

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
« Reply #26 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

Nick C

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 3293
    • http://www.pokertda.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=557;sa=forumProfile
Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2012, 05:38:31 PM »
Chet,
 Thanks for the info but, I don't get it.

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
« Reply #28 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.

chet

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 734
Re: Balancing Tables - Clarification
« Reply #29 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