I am organizing a tourney in my hometown. There will be 30 - 50 players. I've never done a tourney this size so I was curious as to the correct way to determine who moves their seat when one table:

A.) has more players then the rest of the tables.

B.) must be broken down entirely.

Even something as simple as two tables are left and table A has 9 while table B has 7. Which position moves from table A and to which position does he enter table B?

Any information on this subject would be extremely helpful. Thank You.

From Robert's Rules of Poker:

The one question of yours that I think this doesn't answer is WHEN a table needs to be broken down, and that is when the number of people eliminated is equal to the table size. For example, if you have 10-player tables, you break one after every 10 players that are eliminated.

thanks a bunch man...big help.

Are you using Tournament Director? If so, just let it do the moving of players for you.

What do you think?

If you are moving one player to even the tables, move the next BB to the BB position on the other table (no one misses a blind).

If you are combining down to one table, don't worry about filling in seats. Just have everyone pick cards for a new seat at the final table, and deal for button again as well.

You move the next BB to the open seat closest to the left of the BB.

If you have 4 or 5 tables don't get tripped up into moving people just because there is a 2 player differential, things will even out shortly.

What I mean is with 5 tables if one table loses 2 players, this is an acceptable differential. , no need to move anybody. Its only when you get a 3 player differential that you need to balance (when you are at two tables it makes more sense to keep balance within 1) (I am assuming 10 player tables here).

If you have 5 tables and one table is down to 7 players and the others all have 10 take 1 player from the table that is first scheduled to break (if that table only has 9, then take 1 player from the next table scheduled to break etc)

I have been to a few 5 and 6 table tourney's at elk's lodges and the like, I thought the running of the tournament was so poor that I didn't go back after 2 or three even though I won the first and finish in the top three the other 2. I don't want people to say that about the tourney that I wan't to run.

Thanks for all the info guys...this was my first post...and i can see why so many people do it.

I'm going to counter all of the "BB to BB" advocates. It's nice to do, but sometimes tough to coordinate precisely enough without holding up the game. Additionally, the player moves to the worst spot with no information on the play of the table.

I prefer to find the open seat that is closest to the RIGHT of the button, at the table that needs a player.

Take the equivalent player from the other table, and move them into the short table.

That way, you don't hold up the game at either table and the moved player gets a chance to adjust to the other table before facing the worst positions (early and blinds).

Any consistant method works, but I've found it's easier to avoid moving the people going into the blinds. I've done it when I can, but only as an exception. Moving the late position player works more smoothly, in my experience.

Generally, psand's comments are good. A few tweaks to what he wrote:

This assumes the tables are close to full, meaning 8-10 players on average (psandman said 10, but it can be lower). If the tables get shorter than 8 on average, it is more important to keep them more balanced. Even eight might be pushing it, but I think it's acceptable for a playing host.

Here, you definately want to move 2 players to the short table. Even though you'll probably have to balance again shortly, I'd rather have three 9's and two 10's than an 8, 9 and three tens

(hey, there's a poker lesson in there somewhere...)

The game shouldn't be held up in either case. And by moving the next BB to the first open seat to the left of the BB it gives the person a chance to observe without having to post their BB which they would have at the previous table.

But the main reason I like the next BB to the left of the BB move rather than the equivalent seat move is that it takes the player who would be in the worst position next hand rather than any other player - especially those right behind the button.

I agree when you say that consistency is the best.

I agree that consistentcy is the main issue. The reason i don't like the position to position approach is that it takes more time and work to match positions then it does to move next BB to the earliest available seat. I like to call the BB to the earliest position the lazy TD rule because it is so much easier.

1. for final table go ahead and redraw seats and dealers.
leading up to that
2. move according to position, if you lost 3 behind the button on the table short 2 players, take 3 behind the button from table you are taking from.
3. if you are breaking down a table then you putting the players as close as you can to their relative position.

You never move a blind or into a blind with these exceptions. When breaking down a table and say the BB just got busted on a table then you can put the one who was going to be SB into the SB otherwise just put them into their position even if it means they have to sit out a hand or 2 to let the button pass.

I once went to a casino and we were down to 2 tables from 7 and I was short stacked just about to be the button getting broken down, we randomly drew and I became big blind again and was very pissed off. As the reference to tournament director that computer moves according to seat position and no relevance to the button.

Here is the official word from Robert's Rules, fwiw:

14. As players are eliminated, tables are broken in a pre-set order, with players from the broken tables assigned to empty seats at other tables.

15. In button games, if a player is needed to move from a table to balance tables, the player due for the big blind will be automatically selected to move, and will be given the earliest seat due for the big blind if more than one seat is open.

16. 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.

17. The number of players at each table will be kept reasonably balanced by the transfer of a player as needed. With more than six tables, table size will be kept within two players. With six tables or less, table size will be kept within one player.

18. In all events, there is a redraw for seating when the field is reduced to three tables, two tables, and one table. (Redrawing at three tables is not mandatory in small tournaments with only four or five starting tables.)

DO NOT use your tournament software to track player seating. I did that, and it's a pain in the neck for no real advantage. Have them draw for seats (leave out two from each table until you're sure you'll fill up), then just use one of the methods discussed here.

I tend to move from BB to closest open seat behind the BB, but I'm not against the "worst to best" move either.

Good luck with the tourney!

I use tourney director to track my players (buy-ins, re-buys, finishes, KO's, etc.) and I use the software to automatically seat players randomly (which players like) and then when the tables are unbalanced it moves a player from the heavy table to the light table, based on seat number. I do not use the software to track the button, thusly, when a player is moved, sometimes it moves them into a 'better' position, and sometimes a 'worse' one. I do this for one reason: it is easier for me. I found that as the attendance to our weekly game grew from 1 to 3 tables, my winnings were affected because of all the running around I had to do. This way, players do most everything themselves, even press 'X' on the keyboard when they are eliminated, only to be rewarded with Chris Farley's SNL Matt Foley yelling "you'll never amount to JACK SQUAT!".

Anyways, some players have expressed displeasure with the moving procedure, some have supported it. It always re-seats the final table. Is using the seat-to-seat method to move players 'wrong'?

Odd, Shannon, because I stopped using the TD seating because it was taking up too much of my time. When I was still doing it, people would either have to come up to the computers and try to find their names and from there try to figure out where to sit; or I filled out little stickies and put them at the seats, which was very time consuming. Then as players were eliminated, I had to do it in the software. I keep track of who eliminates whom, and to trust the drunken bustouts to do it when they still can't remember to just tell me they were busted (after two years)... well, that ain't happenin'.

These days, they show up, draw from a deck. Three tables, nine seats, spades hearts and diamonds A-9. When a table is imbalanced, it's a few seconds to say "BB from here, move over there." We redraw for the final table. It's a lot easier on me, and helps the players feel a little more involved in their fates.

No, it is not "wrong". It is a home game so whatever is easier for you. As when you host a home game it is for your pleasure of playing. For what the OP described, he is running a public game out at a public place, so he should make sure he has all of his bases covered. Not just for position moves either, little things like cards flipping, people acting out of turn, etc. There will be people there just to play but others who will be serious. I see a few people using Roberts rules as they are great but I think based alot for home games and making them easier. A real casino, or official game would move based on position. Basically it isn't so you lose out and get screwed position or gain.

OP you should be acting as floor supervisor and all decisions are yours and standing.

That depends on how close your tables are (mine are spread over several rooms- one place I played, tables were on several FLOORS), if you as TD get interrupted pulling a player over.... and how slowly they walk, to try to skip the blinds.

Observe what, one freakin' hand?

Why do you feel that's "fairer" to the player, and the tourney, than to take the later position?


I switched to moving the late-position player, closest to the right of the button (i.e. late position), as a practice due to real-world execution:

- The seat doesn't have to be as exact a match, as it should if you're moving from the BB to an early position near the BB,

- you don't have to rush the player over to keep the BB flow going, if the BB seat will be the empty one, and

- you don't have to force players to move apart to accommodate the new player, getting them in the seat that will be the BB next. Remember, odds are it wasn't the UTG player that busted out, so there may be no seating gap.
(Yes, if you move them to the closest open seat, to the left of the BB, it's similar, but....)

One other advantage- it motivates the moving player to get their butt moving over to their new table, rather than dawdle. The longer they take, the closer they get to the blinds.

But hey, you wanna match up to close to the BB, go ahead

Me, I find it easier to pull from late position rather than BB. I agree, trying to do EXACT position to EXACT position is stupid and unworkable in a home game of any larger size, for the most part.

Well, I guess we have opposite experiences doing the same thing. It is probably the players involved too. I love it. When I attend games that don't use TD, I see all the sloppyness that would be cleaned up by using it.

if you read the text you quoted more closely.. you are saving the player moved a couple more hands before they pay a blind. hence you are helping the player.

I'm just going to hijack this thread for a related short question:

I had a home tournament with a couple of friends and lots of friends' friends and when we finally broke 1 of three tables the self proclaimed "tournament director" put two new players at my table which were on the new UTG and UTG+1 postion.

So the problem came up when we finished our current hand and the first of the new players whould have had to post his Big Blind and ante.

His reasoning was that he just paid his BB 5 hands ago and shouldn't be forced to pay again, so he wanted to sit out until the button passed him.
And naturally the second new player to his left completely agreed and claimed that was "how it's done in real tournaments", so he wanted to sit out as well.

What happend now is that I didn't want to be the bitch at a home tourny and the table agreed to their logic.
So they basicly sat out for 3/4 hands, skipped the (quite large) blinds and antes and started playing when they were on the CO.

This just feels horribly wrong to me so, is this really the correct way to do this?

no. Try to move them to as close a spot to where they were as possible. If they were just a blind it would be ok to put them say in between small blind and big blind or between dealer and small blind and let the puck pass. That is it. If you sit out any hands it would be just 1 max.