Author Topic: Balancing tables & new players (again)  (Read 18035 times)

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Balancing tables & new players (again)
« Reply #15 on: May 03, 2013, 09:35:41 PM »
But I especially like your point that if you were to do that, you are giving a player the advantage of having the button for two rounds when we do not have to. I hadn't thought of that, and I think it is a good reason as any for keeping the rules different.

Another point along this line.  When moving a big blind in and placing them in a single big blind spot, that table was only going to have a single big blind anyway.  In a broken game scenario, wouldn't we be penalizing the table (albeit in a small way) by forcing them to only have 1 blind when they could have 2?

Button is in seat 1. Small blind in seat 2.  Seats 3, 4, 5 are vacant. Big blind is seat 6. Utg in seat 7.  Seats 8 and 9 occupied.  The hand is played out and no one busts. Players from a broken table fill in seats 3, 4 and 5. Do you agree that seat 6 is small blind, seat 7 is big blind, and we have to play one hand six-handed, and cannot just allow the new players to start playing?

Yep.

If so, consider the same situation except that the big blind in seat 6 busts.  If the movement of blinds is based on seat, then seat 7 will still post big blind, and we play one hand six-handed (five-handed if seat 6 is not filled right away). If however "position" is not by seat but based on button position, then seat 3 can post SB and seat 4 can post BB... But now seat 7, who was supposed to post BB next, miraculously now  gets to evade the BB for three extra hands (two if seat 6 is not filled) when we did not have to give seat 7 that extra advantage.  The big blind was supposed to move forward, and now suddenly has moved back 3 spaces... I don't think that conforms to a dead button movement, and I feel there are some parallels between the reason you gave to not play with one BB in a broken table situation, and interpreting the rule as maintaining the responsibilities of a "position" based on who can take the blinds after the button rather than considering the _seat_ being filled.

The big blind didn't move back, it just hasn't jumped forward.  Seat 7 is still only paying that big blind 1/9 (or 1/8 if 6 isn't filled) hands which is probably pretty consistent with the rest of the tournament players.

If you flip that around the other way, is it fair for us to make seat 7 pay a big blind here after only having seen 5 hands when the players coming in would likely get more?  Seat 5 would get to come in as the button and see at least 7 plus whatever they got at the last table.

Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter

K-Lo

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 869
  • @AskTheTD on Twitter
    • Ask the Tournament Director
Re: Balancing tables & new players (again)
« Reply #16 on: May 04, 2013, 09:35:59 AM »
The big blind didn't move back, it just hasn't jumped forward. 

This is pretty much the key. I think in the old days when we a moving button rotation was used, not moving the bb forward makes sense.  But I think it is important in a dead button rotation that seat 7, who is completely expecting to post big blind in the next hand and is due for the big blind, get the big blind.

We can agree to disagree on this point.  I am pretty sure most TDs do it your way anyways. It is certainly easier to just look at placement of the button than to ask who busted out when and what seat was due for which blind.

Tristan

  • TDA Member & Veteran Poster
  • ***
  • Posts: 453
Re: Balancing tables & new players (again)
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2013, 08:14:24 AM »
It is certainly easier to just look at placement of the button than to ask who busted out when and what seat was due for which blind.

Yeah, with dealer pushes and other things, it does keep things more simple.
Tristan
@TristanWilberg on Twitter