You guys who are saying things about the OP being mad that he doesn't get to play with the fish are really pulling that our of your...hat. He said nothing like that at all. I would also be upset if I were him.

For what seems like most of you, who think what happened was hunky dory, how would you feel if this were the slightly different situation instead:

There is currently a 5/5 game and a 2/2 game going. The 5/5 game is full, and hero is 6th on the list. The 2/2 game is currently going 7 handed. Suddenly the 2/2 game decides they want to switch their game to 5/5. The floor seats two additional players on the 5/5 list, but this still leaves hero with no seat, and at least two of the players now playing 5/5 were either not on the list at all, or behind him on the list.

Do you think this would be fair as well? It's basically the same situation, but I have seen players try to do this exact thing at a poker room before and they were not allowed to just change the game like that.

While I prefer a different policy the player in your situation is possibly better off. He went from 6th on a list for 1 game to 4th on a list for 2 games. About the only way this ends up being worse for him 8s if they were likely to start a new 5-5 game soon. And if they were willing to do that it means they are likely not far from being able to open a third game for him.

Now if this were a regular occurrence it would probably mean management should be quicker to get that second game going so that players didn't feel the faster way to get the game going is to start a smaller game and change it.

But if they instead just called a second game, it would be full and he would be in the game already.

If they instead called a 2nd game, chances are good they will lose the 2/2 game. That's not something they would really consider. Best case for everyone is to allow the 2/2 game to switch to 5/5 and fill it.

I have no idea how you could think that result would be best for everyone.

Well it seems that you think that 8f they didn't convert the 2 2 game that they were going to open a 5 5 game. If that were true your point would be stronger.... But I don't know that assumption is valid. My experience is that when a full table starts talking about changing the game it's usually because they want to play together .... And I wouldn't assume that any of them are going to move to the 5 5 game if you open it instead of changing their game. But this will of course depend on the specific people.

Well, poker rooms aren't generally run with the intent of letting whoever play together that would like to. People should be seated according to the list, that's the only fair way. And IMO, if there are enough players on a list to fill a new game, the room should call it, even if it will cause a different game to break. I know a lot of rooms don't operate that way, but I have never understood why.

I don't think this is the same situation as OP. Room would probably try to open 2nd game 1st before the switch, the same way it was done in OP.

You still need floor approval to switch games and it's their job to do what they think it best for the room.

What I am saying is those players aren't going to go to the new game. So if you weren't going to open the new game before they started talking about changing the game .... the fact that they want to change the game to 5-5 likely hasn't changed the situation.

Now if you were going to call a new game anyway ..... then call it. After you get that game started if the other game still wants to change we can address that then.

You don't know that they aren't going to go to the new game. They had even just verified that they would go. Now maybe in the OP case they wouldn't have, but the floor shouldn't have known that. Or are they really supposed to make judgements about how big of a whale the guy who doesn't want to move is?

I can just picture them explaining to OP why they didn't open the new game they just announced: "Well, see, the fish didn't want to change tables, and everyone is there to take his money, so we know the rest of them won't move now either..."

In your example you gave no indication they were opening a new game so one could only assume they weren't because you would have told us (at best they were considering it). Its not even known to us if opening a new game is possible (enough dealers or tables)

In OPs case it's extremely clear. They called the new game and it didn't go because once "whale" said he wasn't going the others choose not to go.

That's true, I didn't say that, but in the room where I saw something like this happen they are very good about calling new games, even if they won't be completely full, and even if it might kill an existing game. I wish more rooms followed that policy.

But in my previous comment I was referring to the OP, not my similar example.

So OPs case is even easier. They called the game and it didn't go. He wasn't denied his chance to play because the 2 2 game switched.

If I were running the room, and someone specifically said they were going to switch games, but then refused to do so, I would not allow them to play in that same game at a different table.

I think you probably know why, but you probably just haven't put it together.

Poker players are flaky. An interest list of 15 will turn into a list of 10, which in turn becomes a game of 7.

And part of it is exactly because so many people are picky about who they play with - that interest list of 15 would have been 14 if the first name called were someone a lot of people wanted to play with.

Rooms have a variant of "we will not break a game to start a game" because best case scenario is that you end up pulling the exact same rake, with a nonzero chance of collecting less rake and having both groups of people pissed off at you.

Remember that the best case scenario for a casino is to have a bunch of equally skilled people playing 6-handed 3/6 LHE.

More than a few times I have gone to the poker room for lunch, plopped myself at the 30/60 table, ordered and eaten lunch, and then left without playing a hand because they didn't want to break the 15/30 to start the 30/60. So yeah, I get it. Selfishly, I wish they'd let both games limp along with 5-6 people so I can play SH. But I totally understand why a for profit business won't do it.

And someday when I am rich, I will buy a cardroom and name it Callipygian's House of Degen (CHODE) and I will make them break games to suit me me me. And also if there is NL scum at my table they will be forced to move their game into the back rooms where there are no autoshufflers muhahahahaha.

I feel like your going to make things just too difficult. Now with this rule players won't want to commit to going to a game until they see who is already committed and now you'll never get it going.

I have started games many many times, and it's very rare that the game doesn't go because some players are worried about who else specifically will be playing. It is more common that a critical mass never sits at once and the game never starts because most of them don't want to play short handed.

I understand. But with your rule the players will not want to even commit.

As it is now.....

Floor:. Hey John we are going to start a 5-5 you want it?

John:. Sure lock me up a seat.
5 minutes later
Floor:. John ... The game is going to happen it's time to head to table 10.

John:. Craning neck to see the new game which has 4 players there ..."I'm going to stay here"

Game doesn't go because 3 other people all do the same thing. But maybe floor coaxes the 4 to get it started because the others will come once cards are in the air.

Now with your rule.

Floor:. Hey John we are going to start another 5-5 you want it?

John:. I don't know ... Where is it let me think about .... Craning to see new table.

Because if John says yes now and the game doesn't get critical mass to start .... Your rule says he can't change his mind later to play that game.

Now the floor can't even get some lock ups to start building to critical mass

There are some rooms where if you say you're going, you have to go... Well, you don't have to go there, but you can't stay here. Many places will do that if there is a list for your old game. As soon as you say you're going, there is a new player sent to take your old seat, you have to get up.

I don't see the problem you're worried about happening.

In my room we do this for existing games. You can't play another hand (except to play through your button if you are playing the BB or sb at the time). But with new games that is a problem because we don't want you to have to lose your seat if the game doesn't start.

Well you only send a replacement player when enough people have said yes to start the new game.

I didn't think the replacement player is the determining factor. Sometimes there is no replacement player.

All I'm saying is that if implement a rule that a player can't change their mind after saying they want to go to a new game ... Your just going to move the point of the problem to an earlier stage ... You don't actually overcome the problem.

So says you. I have seen rooms that handle things this way, and players are still not reluctant to commit to the new game.

You're treating these as exclusive, but some of the times that games don't reach critical mass is because players don't care to play with the others on the list over their current situations. I'd say it's more often than you think (a bunch of regs realizing they will be playing with other tough regs if they move).

Yeah you got screwed. The only fair way to let the table switch is to allow them to change stakes but with the understanding that players on the list get priority. Effectively this is just calling the 5-5 list but with the current 2-2 players not already on the list added to the bottom. If some of the current 5-5 list doesn't show, then they can stay.