2 become 1 - final table question!

[RobMay]

Here's a question I can't find the answer to on homepokertourney.com ...

We're expecting a few more than 10 people to turn up to the pub game I help run on Sunday, so we're going to have to have a 2-table tournament. I figured that the easiest way to do it was to have (if, say, we get 16 people) 2 tables of 8 players, with the top 4 on each making the final table.

But if one table gets down to 4 players at 300/600 and the other table finishes at 400/800, then what level should the final table start up at?

Or is there an even simpler way of running a 2-table game?

Rob

[Spooky]

Typically whenever there is more than a 1 seat difference between tables you move someone from the fuller table to the emptier table. Once the hand on the higher table finishes, have the dealer wash the cards and everyone picks one.. low card moves to the other table. Easy.

All tables are on the same blind level, this should be based on time, not on hands dealt/number of players. Check out www.thetournamentdirector.net (http://www.thetournamentdirector.net/) for a great peice of software (donation-ware) to help you run your tourney. It works great if you have an old laptop you can use.

[RobMay]

Yeah, I agree with this method in principle, but I was trying to simplify it so that I didn't have to monitor two tables and order people to change seats when they might be settled with a drink and a comfy spot.

This is a game full of casual players and their friends and girlfriends, so although I want it to be professional and fairly-run, I don't want it to be TOO professional and hard to explain ...

[Big Country]

It is more complicated to have different blind levels on different tables. Also, it is unfair to the players as those on the first table to reach 4 players would not get the same opportunity to grow their stacks as a big stack on the table with 5 or 6 players left would get. Other reasons such as blinds going around faster if you were to get to say an 8 and 5 split or something like that just corrupt the fairness of the game if you do not keep the tables as close to even as possible.

It is a lot easier to merely state that if at any time one table has two fewer people than the other one, the player getting the low card is moving to the other table.

One of the tables is going to have to move at somepoint anyway once you combine for the final table.

[fishfeet]

for our 2 table tourys..

if table 1 starts with say 9 players, and table 2 starts with 8... if table 2 loses a player, that means they have 2 less players than table 1.
We will send a player from table 1 over to table 2.
We determine who is moved by position.
If the person who busted was 3 spots left of the dealer.. then we move the player 3 to the left of the dealer on table 1.

This was actually covered on homepokertourney.com ... thats where I got the idea from.

[TakenItEasy]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, it is unfair to the players as those on the first table to reach 4 players would not get the same opportunity to grow their stacks as a big stack on the table with 5 or 6 players left would get.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the logic of your argument on this point should be just the opposite. Starting a table with 8 players at, say $1,000 each, and ending with 4 will always give them an average stack of $2,000. Moving players during play will pump more money from the slower table into the faster table. This is not necessarily wrong but will effect strategy on the rate of play.

I like to keep the tables balanced and keep the clock going with the blinds to stay on schedule. Combine the tables at 4 and 4 and if one gets there faster than they can take a break.

Generally if a table finishes early, it is because a maniac is driving the action and not the blinds. It is more difficult for a table to finish late against the blind schedule driving the action.

[slamdunkpro]

Balancing two tables of eight is not that difficult when you think it through. You start with two tables of eight. You only need to move someone if you get to a situation where you have 6 and 8. Then just wait for the button to hit the first empty seat at the 6 tables and pull the button from the 8 table over to the 6 table so they remain in the same position. Now you have 7 and 7. The next move is at 7 and 5, then 6 and 4. At this point if your table is large enough you can combine for a final table of 10.

[mrmookid]

We usually have between 10 and 14 players in our games.

Each table sits no more than 9 players. (So 5-5, 6-5, 6-6, 7-6, 7-7, 8-7, or 8-8.)

Everyone is assigned a random seat via The Tourney Director.

If someone gets knocked out and we are left with 8 on table one and 6 on table two, a RANDOM person moves from table one to table two making it 7 on table one and 7 on table two.

When we are left with 9 people everyone moves to a single table. We randomly draw for seats and for the button.

Regarding moving players. I have seen a number of suggestions. Homepokertourney recommends that you move someone in relation to the dealer. So if the small blind gets knocked out on table two, then the current small blind on table one is the person to move to table two.

The Tourney Directory software picks someone at random and that is what we do. By using this method you could end up posting the big blind twice in a row.

How do other people do this? I'm curious.

[Slow Play Ray]

[ QUOTE ]
How do other people do this? I'm curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there's more than one possible table from someone to move from, we choose the table randomly. The player who gets moves is whoever would be the big blind in the next hand, and they sit in the seat that was just vacated. That way, they take on whatever responsibility the new seat has, and they don't get "screwed" by moving into a blind, because they were about to be the big blind anyway.

[Big Country]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, it is unfair to the players as those on the first table to reach 4 players would not get the same opportunity to grow their stacks as a big stack on the table with 5 or 6 players left would get.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the logic of your argument on this point should be just the opposite. Starting a table with 8 players at, say $1,000 each, and ending with 4 will always give them an average stack of $2,000. Moving players during play will pump more money from the slower table into the faster table. This is not necessarily wrong but will effect strategy on the rate of play.

I like to keep the tables balanced and keep the clock going with the blinds to stay on schedule. Combine the tables at 4 and 4 and if one gets there faster than they can take a break.

Generally if a table finishes early, it is because a maniac is driving the action and not the blinds. It is more difficult for a table to finish late against the blind schedule driving the action.

[/ QUOTE ]

My argument about the slow table being put at a disadvantage is that if you force the table to stop play earlier than the other one, you are depriving any big stack there the opportunity to apply pressure and grow his stack any more heading into the final table. meanwhile, on the table that still has 5 or 6 tables, a big stack could easily apply pressure and pick up bigger and bigger blinds as peopel tighten up on the final table "bubble", thus allowing this player a definitive advantage.

The only fair way in my opinion to do a play to four at each table with no table switching if neccesary would be to take the 4 remaining players of each tbale and starting them fresh on a new table. That way, no one was put at an advantage or a disadvantage because their particular table played faster.

[RobMay]

[ QUOTE ]
Balancing two tables of eight is not that difficult when you think it through. You start with two tables of eight. You only need to move someone if you get to a situation where you have 6 and 8. Then just wait for the button to hit the first empty seat at the 6 tables and pull the button from the 8 table over to the 6 table so they remain in the same position. Now you have 7 and 7. The next move is at 7 and 5, then 6 and 4. At this point if your table is large enough you can combine for a final table of 10.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point! When you put it like this, it's not as much hassle as I imagined.

Although, why wait for the button to hit the empty seat?

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding moving players. I have seen a number of suggestions. Homepokertourney recommends that you move someone in relation to the dealer. So if the small blind gets knocked out on table two, then the current small blind on table one is the person to move to table two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks mookid. That's how I'm gonna do it.

Rob

[slamdunkpro]

[ QUOTE ]
Although, why wait for the button to hit the empty seat?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's your first time balancing tables it's the easiest. Also you miss any "hey I just paid the blinds" situations.

[sct]

We use the Tournament Director as well- and move the randomly chosen player. They way I handle the "pay the blinds twice" deal is that they don't. If they just paid the BB on the previous table and would pay the BB on the new table, they sit out the hand. If they are more than one spot from the BB they will end up paying it again- but in 2 hands. We do a similar thing for the small blind. As a player you will never pay the BB or SB two hands in a row dealt to you, at least in the tournaments I run.

In a different question to the origional poster, how do the blinds at your two tables get out of sync? No mater how you do the progression, wouldn't they stay the same for everyone playing?

[Spooky]

It could happen if they up the blinds after X number of orbits of the button.

[RobMay]

[ QUOTE ]
In a different question to the origional poster, how do the blinds at your two tables get out of sync? No mater how you do the progression, wouldn't they stay the same for everyone playing?

[/ QUOTE ]

The blinds would be out of sync if one table reached the final 4 a level before the other table does.

I only asked about this cos homepokertourney.com hints at this way of doing things, but doesn't elaborate:

[ QUOTE ]
You can also use a variation of the shotgun method by playing each table internally until there are only a couple players remaining at that table. For instance, say you have a tourney of 27 players - you could seat three tables of 9 players and have each table play internally to itself until there are only 3 players remaining at that table. Those nine players would then form the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the idea of running a tourney this way ... but my brain can't work it out!

[RobMay]

[ QUOTE ]
You can also use a variation of the shotgun method by playing each table internally until there are only a couple players remaining at that table. For instance, say you have a tourney of 27 players - you could seat three tables of 9 players and have each table play internally to itself until there are only 3 players remaining at that table. Those nine players would then form the final table.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thinking about it, I guess you're just supposed to start the final table with level stacks.