As I think psandman said above, rooms with must-move games should utilize the system when appropriate. We do MMs with 1-2 NL because we aren't a huge room and sometimes will have 2 tables going during the afternoon. First come, first move, so whoever was on the list for the "feeder" game moves to the main first. In our world it is to protect the main game and keep it full as much as possible. Some people hate it and will leave if they get forced to move and I'm sure it has cost us some business to have that policy. Depending on the wait list at the time I will make and announce that all the 1-2s are main. That of course instigates the table-change requests.

Occasionally I will make 2 feeders for 1 main, but normally at times when I don't think the 3rd table will last long, so I want to keep the order intact from table 2 to table 1. Normally it's at a time that a promotion is winding down and I know a bunch of people are leaving.

We are experimenting with leaving the main table -1 in order to keep the feeder a little stronger. Sometimes people complain, other people like it.

Actually we allow them to chip down to the starting ranges if we force the move. Some do some don't. If they move from main to main they must bring everything.

Haha, OK I guess I now know of one room that doesn't require it.

Got moved in a must move once. Commerce 1/2 PLO. We had 2 tables running. Must have been miserable cause I tripled up then the guy tapped my shoulder. Whole lot of money left the table. Not sure why the other game needed to be filled, maybe it was some regs idk.

I like that 'OP' found a thread to revive and not start another one!! Well done rookie ...

The 'standard' industry rule is that as long as you don't change blind stakes (1/2, 2/5) or games (NL, PLO) then you must maintain your stack from table to table no matter the reason for the table change.

Unfortunately we do have a casino (Toledo) in the Midwest where IMO the regs have influenced the rules on table changes. Somehow a Floor bought into it and implemented the system when hired into another casino (Mount Pleasant). Their rule is that 'any' Player making a table change (by request, must move or table break) MUST drop down to 'table' stakes or below.

Floor's will say ... It protects a Player from bullying a different table when they request a table change.

'Real' Players will say ... It allows a Player to 'go south' by simply requesting a table change, basically starting a new session.

'Real' Players will say ... Why should I be punished if a Floor moves me off a MM or breaks a table?

One casino I know of has a great rule when opening a new table. No existing Players may request to move into that table for at least an hour after it opens, thus protecting those Players from deeper stacks stepping in as a bully. GL


PS .. dinesh .. Now you know of three ..

If I were going to allow someone to chip down when moving tables, the only time I would consider it is when I am the one making them move, so I can see the reason in the way Aurora Tom's room does it. If it is their choice to move, they should never be allowed to chip down otherwise players will just use table changes as a way to go south.

In a cash game?

Yes, it's very common for a reg to want to move into a new 'main' table if he sees it opening up. I like to do it myself if I see easier targets and I've always been under the notion that Players that have been on a wait list are chomping at the bit to get some chips moving around.

I can see both sides of the 'bully' discussion. In our 'effective stack' virtual world here we don't care, but in the real world I'm not shocked that a $100 stack is more worried about a $600 stack than the 'new' Player buying in for table max of $200. GL

Look I understand the psychological effect on players who don't know better. But maybe we should make a point 9f not buying into it ourselves and using the language they use so that we don't promote the false idea.

Hialeah Park, which doesn't run a great room in my opinion, actually has a really good must-move process. They frequently get 3, 4, or 5 PLO games going. Here's what I like about it.

1. They use a chain, (3 to 2 to 1) but when they get to 4+ tables, they'll designate 2 of them as the main game. (4 to 3 to either 1 or 2). Any time a seat at either main game opens, they'll offer the players at the other main game the opportunity to switch tables.

2. They won't keep the main game full at the expense of killing the must move table. Instead they'll use a +1 method. With 4 games and 30 players, they'll have 9 at a main game, 8 at the other main game, 7 at the primary feeder, and 6 at the brand new feeder. Which is a lot better than 3 full tables and a feeder table with 3 players.

3. The buy-in is capped at $1000 for the must move tables but at the main game you can match the big stack.

Francis007, I'd just like to give you kudos for actually using the search function and finding an appropriate thread to post in. That's refreshing in a new poster.

This seems like an awful lot of moving around. You're triggering multiple moves every time one of the main gamers leave.

Why would you even need a must move system if you can get 30 people to agree to play the same game?

Why would you delete the answer to your question when quoting ...

'Protecting' new Players from feeling/being forced to be short stacked has both it's pluses and minuses (as does the whole MM system) ... and no right or wrong IMO. In general though I think it's unfair that we would put a brand new Player at a 'main' game that no one else may want to move into. Typically that's not the issue as most Players want to get around the bigger stacks as quickly as they can but in the extremes of a thread ... and I see plenty of Players who actually cash out once they are called to a main game that's too deep (or too tough) for their liking.

A possible loophole in the system noted is that 'technically' the table stakes change (to match the stack) and therefore a Player should be allowed to go south as well as north. They may have a room rule against that, but again ... extremes.

I think a move could be eliminated if they just filled both MM 'as needed' from the list and then kept track of the list that now covers the Players at both MM tables for moving to the two main tables. I suppose you could allow for a MM to MM table change if a Player wanted. If things get short then you combine the two MM and go from there.

I tend to always look out for the new (rookie) Players who may not be rolled or trying out the game/taking a shot, unfortunately this will also have the handcuffing affect on the regs as well. GL

Don't assume they are cashing out because it's too deep. In a daisy chain must move after hours and hours that first game is very often not considered a good game because of the type of players that populate it.

Because that would be a self-inflicted reason.

As far as I am aware, the primary reason to have a must move system is to insulate main games from variations in the player pool. Like if there are 9-12 players, you can (a) run 1 table and make 3 people wait, (b) run 2 tables and have people fight/complain about playing short or table changes, or (c) run a must move system where you have 2 tables but avoid the fighting and complaining.

At some number of players, it's not obvious why you can't just let people sort it out. If you have 18-24 people, you can run 2 tables and have 0-6 people sitting around because the waits won't be long. Or two mains and a must move (start with 8/8-8 and drop to 7/7-5 and if you drop below that fill the mains and break the must move). The more people you have, the more flexibility you have.

If it really is the case that people have daisy chained must moves with different buyins, they should just run separate lists for a short stack game and a deep stack game.