I saw this post in the Breakroom and I've seen similar in other places.

I've know some floors who try to avoid opening a new game if it causes an existing table to break. How do people feel about this if a) they want to play the new game and b) they are in the existing game and don't want to play the new game? If you are in situation b, how should you go about complaining?

Do floors in your room seem to take this into account? Do they just open new games willy nilly? Do they seem to show favoritism towards certain players or higher stakes when they open tables?

In the past, the floor that I am most friendly with has not wanted to break tables to make new ones. Recently, he seems to be pushing for variety in the room, and I think he has been more open to this possibility if: (1) the game is bigger than the existing game that may break and (2) it is an infrequently spread game type for our room.

We have a VERY hard time getting non-standard (for the room) game types going, though, so I doubt it has actually come up.

Floors should be willing to pull players from a game that has many tables or long lists, because grabbing those players is unlikely to break the game.

They should be less willing to take players from a similar game with few tables or short lists, because it is much more likely to break the original game. On occasion it might be acceptable though, if they know specifics about one or both games, or the player sets.

This is one of those issues that all depends on perspective.

If I want to play a new game and they won't open the new game because it will break the existing game it seems to me the answer is that those of us who want to play the new game should get up and cash out. Now they lose the existing game anyway and don't get the new game. Maybe they will figure it out.

On the other hand if I'm a player and my game is going to break because they are opening a new game I'm going to be a bit annoyed by that decision especially if I think a small delay in opening the new game might help save my game.

I agree with all of this. I think you don't want to alienate players who would lose a game if you open another game. If you're talking about a room full of locals, you might run the risk of losing them to another room (here in Detroit, we have three casinos and basically only regulars playing as we don't get a lot of tourist gamblers).

If you're in Vegas and dealing with tourists, I think there's less concern over keeping the tourists happy and the locals will understand a little more.

Personally, it used to happen all the time in my regular room. They'd open a 2nd 2-5 NLHE game in the morning when they had 7 players in the room to open a 2-5 PLO game. All 7 were also on the NLHE list and you knew once they opened a 2nd NLHE game, you were screwed on the PLO game for at least an hour or two until more 2-5 NLHE players showed up to fill the game. They started to get smarter though and they would open the PLO slightly short handed instead of opening a full 2-5 NLHE game. Effectively the same rake in both games (you could argue PLO is a slower game, but it's effectively the same rake).

Sometimes, I think you need to rely on the floors to know your room and know the ins and outs of what works best for the room. Someone who isn't normally in the poker room early in the day might not understand the benefit of opening a 7 handed PLO game vs a 9 handed NLHE game because they don't see the issue that arises from opening the NLHE game. That's where consistent floor people who understand the dynamics of a room can go a long way.

Most Floors do a good job of making sure all seats (if not still a healthy list) are available for the existing game before pulling players to a new game. The only exception to this would be for 'the game of the day' and there is pressure to get the game started from the players.

I've seen many times where players put their name on 'all' lists just to get a seat and then it mucks up the lists when trying to open new games.

Some players just don't get it past what they want and others work with the Floor and respect the room as a whole. I've seen players leave a game when 4 players go to a new game just because the replacement players didn't get there quick enough. GL

Ultimately, it's a tough decision that the floor has to make, but one thing that people generally don't recognize is that players make it way tougher than it needs to be.

Player A will start the new game 7-handed or more but will stay if it's 6-handed. Player B will only play if Player C plays. Player D won't play PLO with Player E but will play NL. Player F will answer yes to any question asked but his answers have zero bearing on reality. Player G will lock up a seat in the new game but then play through his BB in the old game and if he wins a big pot he might just decide to stay. Then if Player H realizes that the game might break he stops taking his blinds and starts cascade failure as each person sitting out (often still at the table) increases the chance that their left hand neighbor gets buttoned.

People quitting the old game to break it and force the floorman's hand in starting a new game is effective but deep down a raging ******* move.

If you're any of the people listed, frankly, you inject uncertainty rather than certainty into the system and you can't be surprised if the for-profit business which desires certainty responds with draconian measures. The reason why a lot of floorpeople are SUPER DUPER conservative about starting new games is that on average 4 of the 9 people they call won't end up taking the seats. So they have to wait until there's a list of 15 before they can call it down.

If you're trying to start a new game, do everyone a favor and be someone who commits early. Text the other players to get them in the door at roughly the same time. When the game is fired up don't be afraid to miss a few hands at your old game. Take yourself off lists you're not interested in.

And for the sweet love of all things holy, when your name is called don't stand up and look around, obviously scoping the competition and making it clear that you may be yes or may be no depending on who is playing or who is not playing or what seat you can get. Because everyone knows that if things don't go your way, you're going to make a last minute change and potentially wreck everyone's plans.

I never understood why people got mad about this. If im playing 2/5 NL and 2/5 PLO gets called and 7 people get up, well, it looks like 7 people want to play another game. Yes it sucks but i mean it is what it is and im not gonna force people to play a game they dont want to play when a sufficient amount of players want something else.

Good floors try to time / balance it out so new players will fill the near broke table but honestly even this isnt necessary imo. If 8 people want to play something else suck it up and get to the top of the list for your respective game.

I absolutely refuse to participate when people try to organize this move, even when it is in my short-term financial interests. I think doing so is bad for the long-term health of the room, but I also just think it is a dick move. I also remember playing smaller stakes than I do now and having this sort of behavior break my table or leave it short-handed, so I have empathy for the people who get left behind now that I am the player who will be moving on to the bigger game.

I do think that by refusing to make the floorpeople's job harder, it makes them more likely to value my opinion while they just absolutely hate the people who try to organize these sorts of power plays. I also feel like the players who will sit out and wait for only their preferred game and never play lower or dump money at slots or table games while waiting are probably not that valuable to the casino and their opinions shouldn't matter that much to the casino.

I hate it when players come to a game (usually limit) and try to recruit players for another game (usually Omaha).

Hey, Joe and Bob are in this game. He guys, Stu wont play 6 handed, but you two will make it 8 handed. Wanna start a new game?


Those are MY fish! Don't take my fish!!!

Getting up and forcing a new game only works when the players are more right than the floor.

I'll give a scenario that happens frequently enough that I've probably been on all three sides of: a player comes in and wants to fire up the big game. The floor calls down the big game, gets like 5-6 commitments but all from the second biggest game. The floor balks, the players revolt, and start sitting out (this is LHE meaning getting buttoned is a pretty big deal). Spilt milk, etc., floor relents and starts up the big game. BUT ... now there are a bunch of people who want to play our their orbits at the second biggest game, which has ground to a halt. There's 3-4 people at the new table ready to go, but now someone doesn't want to play 5-handed and someone else doesn't want to play 4-handed. The new player decides **** it he's going to take one of the empties at the second biggest game. Now all hell breaks loose, with players demanding other players get kicked off the table.

In the interest of fairness, I'll give an example of it working well. Players A, B, and C are all at the second biggest game but want to play bigger. They are all good players and probably don't want to play each other. But they're in text contact with some other players who have a reasonable ETA like 15 min. One by one, A, B and C will leave on their blinds, leaving the game a little short but not on life support. And they'll fire up the big game and play at a loss for a while before people arrive and the floor gets a 5-handed big game plus a stable 7-handed game. And after a while the floor realizes that this works and doesn't try to stop it any more.

I don;t think off it as a dick move at all. Of course I don;t look at it as players trying to break a game either. I look at it as the Players want to play Game A. If they choose to play game B while they wait, that is up t them. It may benefit the room and it may benefit some other players .... but the decision to play at all is a volunatary decision they make. Don;t get me wrong it is possibe for them to be dicks about it ---- they should ideally simply each play until they no longer wish to play (perhaps until their blind comes up) and then say "I'm done" and go wait for the new game to be called rather than making it a verbal challenge to the floor.


[QUOTE=Avaritia;52634217]I never understood why people got mad about this. If im playing 2/5 NL and 2/5 PLO gets called and 7 people get up, well, it looks like 7 people want to play another game. Yes it sucks but i mean it is what it is and im not gonna force people to play a game they dont want to play when a sufficient amount of players want something else.
[QUOTE]

precisely.

Sure but the reality then is that in the long term players learn not to get n the game they don't want to play so then you wouldn't have had your game at all. The best thing for the rooms health is for the players and the room to have some flexibility in trying to get players into the game they want. It is entirely reasonable for a floor to come and say "Hey guys I want to wait maybe 20 minutes before starting the other game because I'm hoping we can get a list to fill your seats ..... but its entirely unreasonable to say "We absolutely will not start the new game until we can fill all of your seats." The difference ... In teh first case you are asking the players to bear with you for a specified length of time to avoid breaking the game .... you are asking for them to help you out. In the second you basically saying .... "We will tell you what game to play." Players are the customers. If the guy doesn;t want chicken noodle soup you can't insist he eat chicken noodle soup. You don't have to offer him a substitution .... but if you want him to come back to the your restaurant you should think about offering him something else to eat.

As a floor that deals with this problem on a nightly basis, I want to say that callipygian is spot on in this thread. Indecisive and overly picky players make this process such a pain sometimes. I've literally called down a game and had all 9 seats locked up with chips or players cards and the game not start because no one moved from their original seat.

Our usual policy in my room is to not start a game to break a game but we make cautious exceptions for the sake of variety. I will break the third 5-5 game to start the first 5-10 game as long as the commitment from the players is genuine. In contrast, I won't start the second 20/40 game if its going to break the second 8/16 game.

And as mentioned above, please take yourself off lists that you're not actually interested in.

I've seen a rule in some rooms where you have to move if you say you are taking the seat unless you are in the blinds (in which case you can play through your button).

Kinda piling on here, but this is my dilemma just about every Thursday afternoon. I have a 10-20 LHE game at 10am every Thursday. Some guys will play from open to close. Then every Thursday at 5pm I start a feature 20-40 LHE game. I get between 17-22 players for 20-40. Most of them end up filling in empty seats on 10-20 when 20-40 opens. It's a very difficult game to get into as we roll the list forward each week. The top 10 were the same 10 for about 6 or 7 weeks straight at one point this year. So every Thursday the guys waiting for 20-40 want me to start a feeder game. At that time 7 or 8 of them are playing 10-20. Starting a 2nd 20-40 game will send 2 or 3 players out the door, typically some of our most loyal players. I normally resist upping the game because I don't want to piss off the ones that only want 10-20. Plus it's a slower game because of the number of chips, and slightly harder on the dealers because of the number of chips. It's just one of the many situations where I can't please everyone. Like right now when one person wants to watch CNN and everyone else wants the Cubs. God forbid they move their head 10 degrees to see one of the other 12 TVs that the Cubs are on. (And I'm a huge Cub fan)

It's a common rule but you can't really apply it to a new game .... suppose the first player on the list says he'll play. Are you really gping to make him gI've up his seat when the new game doesn't get more players?



Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

Aurora Tom, why are you starting a second 10/20 to begin with if there are more players who want to play 20/40?

It's an existing 10-20 game. Not starting a new one. The question was about opening a new game which will certainly break an existing one which would happen if I opened a feeder 20-40. It would break the 10-20 where usually 3 players would be stuck without a game.

In at least one room I play in with this rule, before they open a new table, the floor or brush actually goes around to all the players currently seated at other tables and asks them if they are playing, only opening the table if there are enough affirmative responses. Maybe is not an acceptable answer. It's yes or off the list.

So do they start a game 5 handed? What if someone doesn't want to play 5 handed? 4 handed? At some point you have to respect the customers preferences.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

I thought you meant it would break the second 10/20 game, not the main one.

Too bad for the 10/20 players, but if the 20/40 wasn't happening, they would have no game anyway? Other days the 10/20 just breaks earlier?