Lingo update for AJ's $15-30 players

[Tommy Angelo]

With two and sometimes three $15-30 games going everyday now, table seven will no longer be called "the main game." From now forth it has been decreed that it shall be known as "The Final Table."

:-)

[Rick Nebiolo]

Tommy,

I gather when they have three games they are "chaining" * the must moves. If so, what do you think of this practice?

I'd also be interested in other's thoughts on chaining must moves. I'll withhold my two cents till later ;-).

Regards,

Rick

* By chaining I mean when a third game is started they don't take the must move off the second game. Instead the third game is a forced move to the second game and the second game is a forced move to the first game.

[Lee Jones]

Isn't the alternative to chaining (no matter how you feel about chaining) near-anarchy?

Let us assume that there are 25 $15-30 players in the room (and that you have nine-seat tables). Then you can have two games of nine, and one game of seven. That seven-player table is clearly "at-risk", but with a prop or two, and/or committed players, it will stay down. The two other games proceed apace.

But if you permit game switching from any table to any other table, then you have, at any time, probably 3-4 people jumping around trying to find the best game (and/or "lucky seat"), in addition to the 3-4 out taking a smoke. That takes 7 players out of action, and because players can move around, leaves you with three six-player tables. They're all at risk.

A rigorous queueing algorithm that moves each player from game N down to game 1 is

1. Best for the games
2. Easiest to manage
3. Least subject to abuse.

Regards, Lee

[J.A.Sucker]

The "main game" might also be called the "ticket to 6/12" game, the "dinner time game", or the "bad beat table," as in, getting moved to this game is a truly bad beat.

[Tommy Angelo]

Rick,

If I were manager of a big room that has three or more games each of the multiple mid-limit stakes going everyday, I would not use a must-move policy.

But if I were manager of AJ's I would definitely stick with the must-move plan, even with three tables, because (besides the points Lee made) the third table doesn't rate to last long these days. If it got to where they had three solid tables of $15-30 going everyday, with a list, then I would consider doing away with must-move chaining policy, but only after a closely watched trial basis. The final decision would weigh the recurring hassle of tracking the lists and moving the players, against the recurring hassle of players bouncing all over the room and upsetting each other and the floor staff in the process.

Theoretically, I prefer must-move and chaining because it is rigid and fair. As a player, I prefer must-move and chaining because I can see who will be where when I'm there. And if I don't like the main game, I've got no problem with sitting out for an hour to recycle. Also, I like must-move because the second game will always get short at some point, and I often time it so I am there when that happens, even to the point of paying off the floorman to move me to the bottom of the must move list. (Shhh. Don't tell.)

Tommy

[Rick Nebiolo]

Lee,

The kind of chaining I'm talking about is pretty much what Tommy discribed elswhere in this thread. But since I'm not David Sklansky I'll elaborate.

Without chaining let's say there are two games. Game B is a must move to game A which is the main game. Often when the board is solid the must move is taken off depending on club policy. If a third game is started that game is a must move to either game A or game B. Or the club may keep the must move on until the third game starts and that is a must move to either game A or game B. In this case a customer can move from game A to game B and game B to game A but not from game A or B to the must move game (unless they sit out an hour).

With chaining the must move is maintained for all games and customers are forced from game C to game B to game A. When the Bike had four and sometimes five 20/40 stud/8 games a few months ago it was chained. The customer never had a choice of moving between games. IMO that is one reason we lost certain key cusomers and are now down to two or three games.

Somewhere on this forum (perhaps search on chaining) is a thread regarding the impact of chaining on the makeup of the overly protected first game. Trust me, it isn't pretty.

Regards,

Rick

[Zeno]

My take and suggestions:

The C to B to A rigid structure is best. But more than 3 tables chained together is loony. After three tables fill up, start an independent game, and separate independent games after. No switching from independent game to must-move cattle games. You can move from independent game to independent game.

"Trust me, it isn't pretty."

What is in poker?

IF, I ever play at this AJ's I will be packing my gun. I plan on sitting any damn place I please. /forums/images/icons/grin.gif

-Zeno

[Rick Nebiolo]

Zeno,

IMO chaining is a mistake whether it is three games or five. It overprotects the main game and usually results in a situation where the weak players are weeded out and the toughest players are all forced to the main game. Meanwhile, the players who want to move between two or three main games protected by a single must move (had there been no chain) can't move because of the chain.

In my experience casino management over responds to the complaints of the day player(s). The regulars that want treasury bond level protection of the first game tend to complain vociferously when they think a must move was taken off too early while the regulars who want reasonable choice between games tend not to express themselves. Management responds by implementing ever more rigorous must move policies. In card rooms, the squeaky wheel gets the grease while the fact that the engine is down two quarts goes unnoticed.

Regards,

Rick

[mike l.]

"I'd also be interested in other's thoughts on chaining must moves."

i think theyre dreamy. ive been encountering 3 20-40 tables down here especially on weekends.

the third table is usually shorthanded and fishy. the second table is full and fish supreme. the final table is just a fish heaven with all the stuckest players.

[Rick Nebiolo]

but mike how do you get to the final table??? you have to get through two games!

anyway, my observation is chaining several games results in a main game with the super grinders and only sometimes the super stuck. in both cases the main game is usually surly - which probably works well for a player with your psyhcological dominance ;-)

~ rick

[Pot-A]

I agree. All chaining does is sort the players in order of toughness. Once I get to the final table I usually go and play another game for an hour or so.

[Rick Nebiolo]

Pot-A,

thanks for the input. i was able to find this link on the stud forum regarding Alan Bostick's views on chaining:

http://tinyurl.com/fwis

regards,

rick

[Zeno]

Rick,

Thanks for such an excellent response to my post. Not everyone will be satisfied with the game setup I suppose, no matter what is done. My experience with must move games in Omaha 8 is fairly decent. If the session is long you kind of move with a train - boxcars in front of you, other boxcars behind, and if you play a lot you know which boxcars are where. I really don't notice the difference in tables that much, but I can see that a certain trend does develop.

If the poker room has must move games, then I would tend to prefer the chain method. If I had my choice, I would go with all independent games. Then all the wild ones can play jack-in-the box poker all they want. But I suppose this has problems also.

Using my suggestion would try to please both styles of table arrangement and would probably end up pissing off even more people. Such is the Poker World. I do not envy your job.

Regards,

-Zeno