I've run an 11-player occasionally, but it's not great. At 9 or 10, if I know more are coming, I'm looking to start a second table.

Besides, we're usually spreading different games at each, when we have enough players.

sob! the good ole' days..

Going beyond ten players will present problems exacerbated by the game being played. Ten-handed Omaha, for instance, goes through 48 cards.

So?


but, I agree that most players agree that more play is necessary.

...and 9-handed Big O has no burn on the turn.

This is an awesome idea. Also, I am highly jealous that you have two tables of stud sometimes! I dont think I could field a 3 handed stud game in my circles.

At my club, for tournaments, we do a single table at 10, and split at 11 (into 6 & 5, respectively.) 5's very shorthanded, but luckily it's the only awkward number, as anything else is equiv. to a 6max.

Folks who vote for playing 11-handed in a home game have to be the biggest nits. I bet they'd chop the blinds in a non-raked game...

DUH!!!!

Well, since this got bumped I guess I'll give you all an update. I had 13 confirmed but had one no show. Game ran up to ten players right around 9:30 and then we split to two tables. Six handed is fine with all my guys and everything ran well for about an hour. One guy left with a family emergency and we combined to one table around 1am after a cash out. The game ran later than normal and we even added a player sometime around 2am.

Overall it went fine but I wasn't a huge fan of the six/five split that ran for a big chunk of time. I think 14 is probably the sweet spot for running two tables. My goal for the next few months will be to recruit a couple more guys in the stable.

The decision to play 11 handed is a "social" decision, not a "poker" decision. Without fail, the tables that vote to play 11 handed want to talk and socialize (and don't play seriously or much care if they win or lose). Tables that vote to split into two short tables are more serious about the game.

DrStrange

As far as how I run my game, during the summer time is when I have the biggest turn outs. Throughout the year I have a solid game of 7-9 depending on schedules. When summer rolls around the same players play plus an additional 11- 15 I have on a list.

We fill up the first table on first come basis and once that's filled the other table starts up. We never put more than 9 on the first table, none of the players mind waiting around because they A. Usually never have to or B. Its not a long wait.

I have the start time at 6 and players roll in anywhere from 10 to up to 630 to fill in the first table and a short game on table 2 by 7. I never had anybody complain about waiting a bit, plus I'm constantly updating players on what's going on. I have a 30min call rule before leaving which gives me time to fill up the seat by the time there's an empty seat.

I personally wouldn't mind waiting around knowing ill be getting in a game, and would much rather do that then push the game to 11 or 12 ..just the thought is disgusting.

We do something similar... but our cutoff is 12 people. As soon as we have 12 people (our tables are 10 person tables), we go to 2 tables of 6 players.

We go back to 1 table as soon as we have just 10 people total, obv.

I'm a big guy, and even on an 8-foot oval I'm crowded when 11-handed. I always want my casual tourney group to play two tables when we have 11, and I'm not the only one who feels this way. I get my way when I host, but our regular host doesn't like the hassle of setting up two tables just to recombine after the first bust-out.

So comfort and laziness are factors, too.

I'm assuming this is a weekly cash game and not a tournament, since a tournament wouldnt have this dilemma.

Why worry about "splitting" up tables? Just designate the first table to fill up as the "main" game and use a first-come, first served system. Once the "main" game fills up, you can open the second table as soon as 4 or 5 players are ready and waiting. Not only does this reward the players who show up on time, but it also allows any players who want to play short to join the new table.

You could also designate the second table as "must move". For example, if the "main" game falls below a pre-determined minimum # of players (usu. 6 or 7), players could be "must moved" (first by volunteering, then at random if no volunteers) from the second table to keep the main game alive. This protects the integrity and longevity of the "main" game.

Because the chances of 4 or 5 players waiting long enough for the second table to start up is less than the chance that these players will find something else to do and not play at all?

"Punishing" late players by making them wait will only encourage future no-shows. I want everyone at my game to be able to play as soon as they show up, not have to wait an indeterminate amount of time to get a seat.