CAZ is Casino Arizona. All of the time games operate under a must move system (20-40+ limit games and 5-10/ 10-20 spread games). If there is more than one table running the same limit/game, the new table is a "must move", and the original table is the "main game". As seats open in the main game, players are moved in order of seniority into the main game.

At CAZ, if more than 2 tables are running for a game, the must moves are "chained", you enter at the first must move, are eventually moved to a second must move, and finally to the main. And if you leave the main game, you have to wait 1 hour before you can re-enter the game in a must move.

At CAZ, the must move is in place even if it's invisible. I.e. if there is only one game, it's still a "main game". If you leave it for a different game (say 8-16), and 30 minutes later a must move is started into the main game, you still are required to wait another 30 minutes before you can come back into the must move.

I believe that the primary goal of the must move system should be to ensure the best game quality and happy players, and that the secondary goal should be to minimize floor work load. I'm not always sure the order of those priorities is shared by some of the floors (I think they have it reversed), but that's the spirit in which my suggestions are going to be written.

1) Don't punish players for leaving main game when there isn't a must move.

If a player leaves a main game when there is no must move, they should be allowed to join a new must move, as long as they didn't try to game the system. I.e. if by bouncing out of the main knowing a must move is about to start. If a player doesn't like the current main game, and goes to play another game, why not use them to help start a new must move? Again it makes the mid stakes games healthier rather than force another mistakes player to sit in an 8-16 game for a full hour while the floor doesn't have enough players to start the must move.

To avoid having players game the system, a simple solution would be to lower the wait to 15 or 30 minutes when there isn't an existing must move game.

2) Eliminate Chained Must moves.

If more than two games are running, the must moves should not be chained. There should be one must move, and players should be allowed to move between the two main games if they request a table change. It seems very odd that low limit players are given the option to table change, but high limit players aren't. Given that three or more must moves happens infrequently this wouldn't be a big rule change,but it seems to make sense to me.

3) Use players willing to play short handed to help start new games

There are often times where a must move could be formed if players would start a game short handed, but there aren't enough players on the list willing to do so. Being able to start more short handed must moves benefits the casino, more tables pay more time, and it benefits the games, because it provides more game selection to players.

When I play, esp. at night, I see players who want to play 20-40 or 40-80 come in and be forced to sit around, waiting for a seat in the single game they want to play. Even if they are willing to play short, the other players on the list often will not be. A week ago I saw two players who wanted to play 40-80 (or higher) mix, forced to miserably sit in a 20-40 holdem game for 5 hours and eventually leave when no seats opened in the sole 40-80 mix table. This is really bad, because those players are now less likely to make a long trek out to CAZ to play, fearing they'll be stuck in a game they hate for hours on end.

This would not be a problem if CAZ would employ prop players to start games, but it doesn't. The current poker hosts aren't props, and cannot be required to start games. And given the economy, I think proposing that CAZ hire props is a non-starter, esp. for slower shifts like the night shift. But fortunately there are full time regulars who are always willing to start new games short handed, and it won't cost the casino a dime to use them. Disclosure: I'm one of them.

The problem is that typically these players are already in the main game, so they aren't available to start new must moves. I would like to propose that the floor be given discretion to pull these players out of the main game to start new must moves, with the following restrictions to ensure fairness.

a) The floor will offer a limited number of must move seats to main game players (say 1 or 2) in order of seniority. Each main game player will have the option to accept/pass until the floor gets the number of players they need. This ensures the opportunity is given fairly to all players.

b) Change 7 handed mix games to 6 handed when starting a short handed must move by moving one player to the must move. This would be a big benefit for the main game because UTG is no longer required to sit out during 5 card triple draw games, and players get to play more hands.

In general, the players who agree to move and play short handed will be tougher than average players, which will also benefit the players who remain in the main game. So it should be a win/win for everyone involved, it would allow more games to run, and attract more mistakes and higher stakes players when the know they are more likely to get into games quickly.

Please feel free to propose your own ideas for how the must move system at CAZ can be improved. Unfortunately I don't think I can add other ideas to the poll after I post this, but we can discuss them in the thread.

As usual I'll cross post this so that CAZ management can see it.

I would be very opposed to having table selection at the same limit become standard at CAZ. It makes it even more obvious who the marks in the games are.

Granted it is a bit rare for 3 games to be going at the same limit, but when it does happen, I don't want to happen at CAZ what I have heard at other casinos, where everyone at a certain limit is on the wait list for one table because a special player is there, and they even name that game after that player, and the floor and all players and dealers know this.

It has gotten a lot better since I started harping at it, but one of my biggest peeves (especially during the lunch hours) is that time can pile up for 3 downs, just sitting there staring the players in the face.

Obviously everyone here would cosign on this proposal, but it would be that your next down is free if the time hasn't been dropped when the next dealer gets into the box. This would:
a) Make sure the floor comes by to drop it
b) Hold them personally accountable for it


Or just let the damn dealers drop the time, they know how to count up to 63 in multiples of 7.

What does this have to do with Must Moves? Nothing really, I just like to rant.

I've offered some suggestions:

1. When there are 3 games the 3rd should be the feeder into the other 2 and players should be able to table change between the 2 main games.

2. When there are multiple games let the main game(s) play 8 handed rather than cause the feeder(s) to become short and possibly break.

3. Allow main game players to leave and start fresh in the MM.

4. When a seat opens in the main game(s) ask first at the MM table if anybody wants to move and then move the next in line if nobody responds.

And we can take all of our ideas and 'you know what' w/ them bec things won't get changed. The way it's done is easiest for the floor ppl and the players have gone along w/ it since CAZ opened. I was once in a main game that broke bec it was no good and everybody in it knew that it was no good so each left in turn when the BB got to them. The MM game was great and those ppl got to play. I tried explaining to the floor why he'd just lost a game (the main game players knew that all that was needed was a couple of table changes) but it was like talking to the wall as per usual.

Except that all the players don't know this nor do they especially care (you are talking about a seated player that wants to change into a particular game, I assume). I and a few others at 8-16 game select that way all the time. We each know exactly why the other is doing it but, as far as I can tell, ONLY we know why. The others don't notice or accept the 'I changed because I couldn't win a hand in that game' or any similar answer.

I've only played at CAZ once (I intend to return at some point, but I am a tourist there, not a reg), but we had this same discussion at my current room (Parx) when it first opened.

The original rule was largely what you described, and what I have roughly seen in place at Bellagio: once a third (or larger) MM is established and is running for 5-10 minutes (i.e. it's not just going to break right away by feeding the higher tables), the other tables stop being a MM, and players at the top tables can table change between them, and the single MM feeds all of them.

What ended up happening: within the first couple days, as the night wore on, the first table (i.e. main game) eventually ended up getting short when the players who had been playing the longest started to depart, and all the MM players on the third table were depleted filling it. Eventually the game got so short that the first table broke, leaving the players drawing for the one or two open seats on the second table. The players who didn't immediately get into the game got pissed that they had been there the longest, and now they were stuck waiting for a seat. Once this happened twice they petitioned the management to switch back to chained MM tables and no table selecting. For what it's worth, our room has a lot more regs and a lot fewer tourists than a typical room, though I'm not really sure if that argues more for one side or another.

In the end, I prefer the system you propose, but it is not without its flaws. You're sorta damned if you do and damned if you don't. Good luck!

@ dinesh:

The 'protect the main game!' mantra being as powerful as it is is why my suggestions are aimed at reducing the MM systems main ill effects: either breaking games or making them bad in the no action sense.

(Not a CAZ player; don't have direct experience of how this stuff plays out there.)

From management's point of view, must-move games are for supporting and stabilizing main games. At least one game is full, generating the full amount of drop, and a second or third game is going generating more drop. It keeps multiple games from going short and then breaking at the same time.

From the player's point of view, one of two situations hold: the feeder game is a good game and the main game is a bad one, or the feeder game is a bad game and the main game is a good one.

The first sort of situation is the one where the waiting time is essential. Otherwise, aware players in the main game will angle their way out of it into the feeder game, bumhunting becomes more evident, and the live ones get reminded of their liveness, which is not good.

When must-move games are chained, in my experience almost invariably the main game winds up a terrible one. I think chaining games creates a bad experience for the customers. If you are going to have three games going, have one feeder game and two main games. With four games you can have either two feeder and two main games, or one feeder into three main games.

Table changes take time to sort themselves out, so the bumhunting aspect is not terribly obvious; nevertheless, table changes eventually bring the one-good-game, one-bad-game dynamic into more equilibrium.

I think a good setup would be to keep the waiting time, to reduce angleshooting by bumhunters, and most definitely not to chain the games.