TOURNAMENT PLAY (forgot to mention in title)

I sometimes hear complaints from players to the floorman wanting an extra player when they are playing 7-handed and all the other tables have 8 or 9.

"That's what they do at the WSOP!" is what those players tell me.

The answer is it depends. What stage in the tournament?

I don’t really care and think that playing ‘shorthanded’ is probably beneficial to me, but it bothers lots of players.

If balancing tables is easily doable and doesn’t create any other problems, I think it’s good customer service to do it.

I just assumed he was asking about an early stage where blinds are small compared to stacks.

If you have 33 players with 32 getting paid and the average stack at 5BB, not balancing a 9, 9, 8, 7 situation is obviously unfair.

It's not just about the bubble. For example in a tournament where registration is still going on and you expect a fairly consistent trickle in of new players, or if you are at a point where you expect the bust outs to be going pretty quickly, it can be less important to keep close balance than when your are a doldrums stage in the tournament where play is slow and the number of players may not change for hours.......

By rule, no.

Typically rules are set to allow a -2 situation, but I like to keep them balanced to -1 if possible. Now that's all going to depend on the size of the tournament and also the specific numbers at the time of the desired balance. I'm normally not going to move a player to a table that is going to break next when one more player busts. I'm also not going to worry about it when there are 10 tables running and players are dropping like flies, meaning another table will break soon. I'll also wait if we're about to have a break so a player doesn't miss a hand because he's moving when I can just move him at the break. I'll also wait a bit if the optimal player to move is handicapped.

So how do you explain this to the guy that wants you to send his table a player from the table that has 2 more players because that's what you just did earlier or last time he was there but you won't do it this time? IMO there is a set way to do it for a reason. Consistency. Poker players need that or their heads explode.

I tell them that the rules allow for -2 and I'm not going to move someone right now because XYZ. And then I walk away.

But if we're down to 3 tables or fewer I keep them -1.

Had a weird spot in a Satty one time where they were expecting a large turnout (which eventually did show up) and our table only had three seats filled/sold at the start. They wouldn't deal us a hand until we were 4-handed. Lots of other tables had a 5th Player before we got our 4th. We went almost the whole first level before our first hand!

They held fast on their 'system' and eventually they had 9 full tables with a list by Level 3. GL

We ran a freeroll satellite last Sunday where we had 38 qualifiers. Originally the plan was to lock out seat 10 on 2 out of 4 tables. But when start time came exactly 30 were registered. So we aborted the plan, moved everyone to the 3 tables, and started. We were a little light on dealers because cash games were busy (1 didn't break like expected), so if we could save a table we would. Then of course 2 more showed up, and I put myself in to deal. Eventually 36 showed, so the 4th table was necessary, and the very last guy to register won.

Typically early in a tournament, keep it balanced within 2 [A short-handed table is 3 less than the maximum number of players at the table, which is when you would manually balance the table if no one is registering]. The tables then will have first priority when a new player registers to receive a player.


Of course, this won't stop the whiny nits complaining about being 7-handed in a 9-handed tournament at the 50/100 level. I mean, those 300 bb blind stacks must be suffering!



Once the tournament registration is over and the tournament starts condensing, it becomes more necessary to keep tables more balanced, especially as you get closer to the money bubble and then the final few tables.

I think you're misunderstanding why people complain.

In a cash game, people write off their blinds like they were dead blinds, so the shorter they are the more blinds they see. And your counter of being super deep stacked addresses that concern. It's not a good counter - the equity in the blinds goes somewhere, so in an unraked game it's just a question of whether you're better suited to play 3-handed or 10-handed.

The more legitimate complaint in a cash game is that you get more hands/hr, which exaggerates your loss if you're a loser and your win if you're a winner. Also the house takes rake on more hands per hour, but that's irrelevant and often the per hand rakes drop shorthanded faster than hands per hour increases (so the casino takes less on a per hour basis).

In a tournament, people will complain about playing short for a different, and more legitimate, reason. And that's because the more hands that are played, the more likely someone variances out of the tournament. One table playing super slow will affect the monetary EV of the other tables. (If you can't imagine it, imagine the extreme case of a 2-table tournament where every player is equally skilled, the bubble is exactly half the players, and one table refuses to play a single hand.)

I don't complain (and secretly love) playing short-handed cash games, but I'd definitely agree with balancing tournament tables within reason. 9/9/7 seems kind of close, but I'd certainly ask to balance 9/9/6 or even 8/8/6.

I understand perfectly. The rule of balancing within 2 is for early tournament play so the impact of EV and variance is minimal. Yes, if it's 9/8/7 with 3 after registration is over and you are in the latter stages of the tournament, you would balance. Taking players off tables to balance in the early stages of tournaments when a newly registered player is likely to take that seat becomes an unnecessary waste of time for tournament personnel. Not until the table is legitimately short-handed [3 down from the maximum].

Has anyone tried to quantify the impact of balancing table on EV? Why should the impact of variance be minimized?

Because the impact on ev will be dependant on the skill of the players and we can't account for it. Total ev at the table is always equal since their is no money coming off the table. The only issue is how individuals fare.

pretty sure it's been said but it is not required for a TD to balance until -3 so 9handed game and a 6handed game existing at the same time. If it's during registration I don't know any TD who would move someone (unless they really didn't expect more entrants soon) but later on (near bubble onward) usually good TD's balance whenever possible as much as possible to ensure fairness.

You can always run a few common scenarios for the distribution of skill and estimate what the difference is. What if the impact on EV is actually minimal?

The quantifiable impact on EV due to balancing table is not a concern for tournament directors while running the tournament itself is. And, as is practical, it becomes a silly unnecessary chore if you have 20 tables and 19 of them are 8-9 handed and 1 is 7 handed to move players around while registration is open unless there is near certainty you aren't getting anymore new registrants [In which case, it would just be more practical to break a table. Ultimately, in bigger tournaments, this just lead to a game of constant musical chairs since they have to be overly cautious about breaking a table while players can still enter.

From my experience when I have let's say 4 tables left and they have 8/8/7/6 players or 3 tables that are 8/7/6. This is when I get the most whining from the 6 handed table. The reason I don't move anyone is because if I do, then if the table that had 8 loses a player then now they are the 6 handed table. Doesn't seem right to me. Not to mention we will be combining tables once we lose 2 more and that never takes very long. Just quit your whining and play. This is the way it's been done forever afaik. Deal with it. It never lasts very long anyway.

What if its 3 tables that are 8/6/6? Which 6 handed table should get the player? Seriously, quit crying and play.

Players cry because they look to people like you for fairness. If not you, then who are they to look to

Part of the reason players see balancing tables as important is in part because many TDs take it very seriously themselves. When there are two tables left and its 10-8, tds routinely move a player. Same thing at 9-7, 8-6 and so forth. Good Tds birddog that closely. So it seems a sharp contrast when the TD doesn't GAF when three tables are out of balance.

Also understand that when three tables are left and its 9-9-7, then the short table will continue to be short for quite some time....since it will become 9-8-7, then 8-8-7, then 8-7-7.

When there are three tables left and its 9-9-7, that's as bad as it can be and still within the rules. If its 9-8-8 then its the best you can make it, and that can be accomplished by just moving one player. The poker culture works better when people do what's fair, what's right and what's expected, even if they don't have to. It works that way with balancing tables and it works that way with tipping.

There is nothing unfair about being unbalanced as long as the unbalanced status came about organically by application of the rules.

In fact insistance on balancing by player count is merely someone's arbitrary preference, why not balance based on chip counts after all it seems unfair for one table to have more chips on it than other tables? How about by player skill? Why should I have to play at a table with two world class players while people at the other tables get to play with a bunch of beginners?

I dunno bro. Seems to be like you must have a personal motive for not wanting to balance tables when balancing seems to be the play that everyone expects. Maybe the tourney will run faster with unbalanced tables or something.

So you're saying if you have two tables left and one has nine and the other has seven, that you would not move a player? Because that's how the tables evolved naturally? For me, it would be tough to explain why 9-7 was actually more fair than 8-8, but if you're comfortable with it, then go for it.

Here's a good compromise....if nobody notices, then keep them unbalanced if that's what you like...but if someone complains, then politely thank them for noticing and move a player.

What I'm saying is if you follow a predetermined rule as to when you balance no result that occurs in the following of that rule is inherently unfair.

How is this unfair? Sure, the blinds come along a little faster, but it's not like the chips leave the table.