I think the most accurate explanation is more prosaic than that.

The chained must move system avoids the controversy of which of the two main games becomes the must move when the feeder game breaks.

People would lie about what they're willing to play and then back down when challenge accepted.

I've played in numerous 1/2 & 1/3 must move games in various casinos.

I LOLed really hard, thanks.

So I understand nits like the must move system - then who hates it? People who like short-handed?

In my experience, neither. When the MM break, you're just down to (main) games, and more than likely it's 3am and you're going to end up with the last two tables getting merged in the next hour or two anyway.

People who table select. And people who prefer full tables, have been playing for a while, but are stuck.

I think Reid nailed the real reason for a chained MM. It's difficult to manage table changes for 3+ high limit games, especially at the moment the MM is removed and you now you go to two (or three) Main Games.

Factor in all the regs who list for table changes to all tables, "Just in Case", and it can take a floor's attention for the rest of the night and is incredibly frustrating when they decline and then realist 30 minutes later.

BUT, I stand in the belief that it's their right to table change. Those guests in the Main game are your game starters, and the players that have been playing the longest. They deserve the right to have first choice of the best games when a seat opens up.

It's a headache, but anyone who runs a MM chain is lazy imo and probably doesn't care about the best interests of their players.

Another way to run the most move is to ask for volunteers from the must move table when they need to fill a seat. "Anybody here want to change tables?" If they get no volunteers, they take people from the list and at least at Mandalay Bay, which uses this system for NL1/2 and 2/5, they take them from the list in last-in first-out order. Folks who've been waiting for 30 minutes for a game when the must move starts have all the options open to them--they can camp the must move game if they please, or take the first seat change, while the person who showed up late will be forced to move if nobody volunteers.

You get a lot fewer complaints with that system, I think. You can debate whether it's a "better" system, but it seems to placate the players (including me--I'm not a fan of the must-move system).

Actually nits are on both sides of it. Depending on their brand nittiness and which table they are at.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using 2+2 Forums

Alternatively, offer people one minute to volunteer to move - person who has been at the game the longest who volunteers gets to move, and after that the person who should have moved gets to.

The LIFO idea makes the must move feel more like a secondary main game, which is not the worst idea I've heard. I can just picture though a nit-reg not moving, and seeing the fish move and suddenly I'm getting screamed at. A flexible system with choices works great with rational and calm players, which unfortunately is not enough of them.

If you can run two main games until 3am, arguably you shouldn't be using any sort of must move system.

You should if you are opening up the third table table at 2am.

You get fewer complaints while both tables are up and running..... but when the must move goes down you often have a situation where players who have been playing longer get shut out of the game that has newer players in it. (Granted that is because the long time players didn't opt into the main game .... but they don't always see it as they made that choice when the must move goes down suddenly)

no, its definitely necessary regardless. foxwoods' one week experiment of not having must moves during a big tournament series resulted in like 9 5-6 handed 2-5 games. was pretty awful

must moves are there to keep the longer established games running. this is fair to the players who have been playing all day and have good "rapport" at their table, and also makes sense from a pratical standpoint because at least where i play, opening/closing tables is a pain in the ass

the purpose of a double must move is to make sure there is still a single must move should the new must move break. when the new must move gets healthy, the original must move becomes a main game

For the house .... more rake. For the players ... more options (play short or ask to combine tables)

At first I thought maybe we work together, but my nits will actually let me know as soon as someone grabs a rack. "hey we are gonna need a player here!"


This is my experience as well.


We run 9-handed games and when we do a MM game we keep the main games at least 8-handed. So basically we wont give them a player until they have 2 seats open unless the MM game is full, then we will move a player to fill the main game. This helps late at night because if I have 3 Main games going and the MM game gets down to 4-5 handed and breaks, I have 3 seats open and only have to put 1 or 2 players on the list instead of 5.

Sometimes we let a MM game become a main gaime if it stays full for an hour. Sometimes we will keep it a MM game until it breaks. It depends on the situation and that descision is announced to the table when it opens.

Time to move someone, I ask for volunteers to move. If more than one player wants to move I let the player thats been there the longest move. If no one volunteers, then I force the last player in to move. Once a player is chosen to move, it's too late to change your mind, you have to wait for another seat. I prefer this system because it gives the player that's been there the longer first choice.

If a MM game breaks, then the players that still want to play will be put back on the list in the order they were on the MM list.

So, why is this a problem? This is a cash game, right?

The first experience with the must move table was a bad one
E and a good one at the same time,
.

After playing a no limit game
E for 7 hours the poker room opened a must move table. After two more hours a guy moves to the main table but is allowed to being all the chips he won at the smaller less competitive must move table. Within a few minute I find my self being put all in by the guy who just came to the table but was allowed to being all his chips even though the max buy-in at this table was less than he has. When I came to the table the most chips I could buy in with was $300. The new guy brought $540 having won 240 at the must move table.

I thought he should have been only allowed to bring $300 like every one else was limited by and wou,d be forced to cash in the extra $240.

He had Queens full of Jack's and I had Kings full of Jack's. He had me covered and went all in. Fortunately I called and doubled up but I still don't like that he had more chips than I did without winning any From the main table.

Any thoughts on this?

Yes, it is standard. In a must move you are both forced to move and forced to bring your entire stack.

You were in no worse position then if he won the chips at your table

Francis007........Cash game right?....... Look up the concept of "effective stack sizes"....Very common when at a MM table , and if if table is broken down for whatever reason, and players dispersed to new tables.

In many rooms a player voluntarily moving must bring the full stack.

It is a rule that if you ever change from one table to another that you must bring all of your chips with you if the table you are moving to is the same stakes. I'm not aware of any well run place that does it differently.

Well their seem to be many that do t require or allow it. While I agree that such a rule may indicate the room is not well run, I imagine it's possible that a room could be generally well run yet have this one bad rule.

For voluntary table changes, I have seen enough variety in the rule, from must bring the full amount to may bring the full amount to can't bring the full amount, to discount it being one to use as an indicator that room management is clueless about poker.

For must moves, though, every room I have ever played in or heard about requires you to take the full stack.