Opening new games / breaking old ones, question to floor/dealers
 

This situation came up at Turning Stone yesterday and it frustrated me as a player.

I came down from my hotel room to find only one game running, 1-3 spread limit hold'em -- the lowest game they spread. This game is a total joke, and I'd usually rather play NL than any kind of limit game anyway, so I sat around doing nothing, waiting for a NL game to open.

I saw a couple compatriots around the room, and asked the floor if we could open the NL game shorthanded. They said yes, "but we can't start with 3 -- we need 6". At this time, a seat opened in the 1-3 game, so I shrugged and sat down to pass the time.
~~
Now we get a few more for NL, so I ask if they'll open NL with 6, including 2 players from the 10-person limit game.

The floor says no, because 'they can't break the 1-3 game.. that wouldn't be fair to the players in that game'... but why not? If the NL players sitting at 1-3 simply stood up on their own accord, then there would be 10 people standing around to play NL, and then the floor would open NL while the 1-3 broke from lack of interest.

.. so then I walked up to a couple of dealers/floor personnel who were standing around talking, and asked them if I would be better off doing nothing at all than taking a 1-3 seat to wait for my game. They said yes. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

... I got fed up, so I bought a deck of cards at their gift shop for $1 and sat at a table with a guy who said he'd play me heads-up. The floor came over and yelled at me for using other playing cards on their tables.

Floor: "What are you doing?"
Me: "I came here to play cards."
Floor: "No other cards on our tables, sir."

A NL game was opened within 2 minutes of this interaction.

Re: Opening new games / breaking old ones, question to floor/dealers
 

Most clubs have a policy that they will not break an existing game to start a new one. (unless 100% of the players in the existing game agree)

Re: Opening new games / breaking old ones, question to floor/dealers
 

While I understand your position, I as a player I wouldn't want to see my game broken up to start another game (especially a shorthanded game.

On the other hand the 1-3 game probably wouldn't break-up from the loss 2 players (depending on time of day).

If this is the time of day when you expect more players to start rolling in then they probably should have started up the NL game.

But if they are not expecting more players to being coming soon starting your game may cause both to break.

If they open the NL game they now have a 8 handed 1-3 game and a 6 handed NL game. now it doesn't take much to happen for both games to break. Two guys who are buddies in the 1-3 game leave together and another player decides to take a long cigarette break/walk around the casino for 45 minutes -- now someone decides they don't want to play 5 handed game gone. The NL game is already at risk 6 handed and at any time a player can get busted out and leave.

Re: detailed answer
 

Clever solution to your problem. You could have just kicked him in the nuts [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img], but I guess your way is <OK> in this particular instance, tho it's not my first choice of actions. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

As a floor, there's a fine line between the needs of those waiting to start a new game, and the duty to protect already existing games. There is no 100% clearcut answer to this delimma, and much of it depends on both house policy and the philosophy of the person in charge at the moment.

Let's look at 2-4 holdem in a small to medium size room, say 10-25 tables. Suppose it's 1:00 am and you know people will start leaving fairly soon. There's 5 games of 2-4 running and there are 12 people on the list. Should you start a new game? Answer is probably not. If your room typically clears out a little after midnight, it's not going to be correct to start a new game at this time. What's going to happen is this - not everyone on the list will show up, so it might not even start full, and you'll wind up with no list as soon as your new game gets started. What happens next is that people start clearing out, just as expected, but now you have no list to re-supply the games that are losing players. That means you wind up with several weakened games. Had you just kept the list, you could have still had five strong games instead of six iffy ones. Now if the list was 25 players long, by all means, start a new game.

Now what about the same situation where there's five 2-4 games, a moderate list, and nine or ten players on an interest list for 4-8? Now you might consider starting the bigger game. Even if you wind up breaking a 2-4 because some of the players for 4-8 are in those games, those who are on an interest list are probably ready to play, and not just about to leave. What I do here is to get the 4-8 players together and make sure they're serious about starting the game, and if they are, I'll start it. Note that I still may lose a 2-4 game, but the 4-8 makes more drop for the house, and more tips for the dealers, thus it might be worth the trade-off to gain a 4-8 but lose a 2-4. This happened to me a while back, and I did not regret starting the bigger game. It lasted most of the night, and the 2-4 players remained happy, even tho one game did break (I re-seated them all happily enough).

Now suppose that you only have one game of a particular category, say 1-2 no limit. There are seven players waiting to play 2-5 no limit, but four of them are in the 1-2 game that is already going. You gotta consider reality here, usually not everyone shows up, and in no limit, if someone gets busted quickly, they may quit the game very fast. No limit is more volatile and thus can be harder to keep together. In addition, you're going to lose four people from your 1-2 game as soon as the 2-5 gets started. So you may wind up starting a weak 2-5 game, and leaving yourself with a weak 1-2 game. Had you left well enough alone, you'd still have one strong game, which is usually much better than two weak ones, especially if it's no limit.

The same reasoning may be applied if you're thinking of starting a 20-40 game when you have two nearly full 10-20 games. It's probably the case that some of the 10-20 players are waiting for 20-40, so you must realize your starting 20-40 will probably hurt your 10-20. If you start 20-40 and wind up losing a 10-20, you haven't done anyone much good. The difference in house drop between the two games is negligable, but the intrinsic -EV of pissing off your 10-20 players when their games get really weak (after all the 20-40 players leave) tilts the scale towards "leave things as they are." There are few things more annoying to players than having new games start (whether the same limit or different limit), having the new games wind up killing your old game, then you finding yourself shut out from the new games.

Things might be different if you had 15 people waiting for three games of 10-20, and 11 on the list for 20-40. Now you can afford to start a new 20-40 game, because it'll open up seats for more players who are waiting for 10-20, and likely won't kill your 10-20 action.

Must-move games are a way of taking care of those waiting while balancing the needs of those already in a solid game. Although I personally don't care for must-move, they do sometimes have their uses. For instance, suppose your room spreads 30-60, but the next biggest limit is 10-20. There are seven waiting for 30-60, and there are five waiting for 10-20, with two full games of 10-20 running. The gap in stakes between the two limits is pretty large, and you're not necessarily going to kill your 10-20 action by starting the bigger game. But with only seven on the list, starting a new 30-60 game could wind up hurting your existing 30-60, especially if a couple players from the first game quit soon after the starting time of the second game. In this case, a must-move might be the best choice of action, because it's in the house's (and players) best interest to protect the "main game."

Overall, it's a balancing act with no 100% clear cut solution. I, as a floorman, try to balance the needs of the house (get maximum drop) with the needs of the players (get the most players happily playing poker), with a side of the dealer's interests* in mind. It's good judgement on the part of the floor that makes these decisions either good or bad. You've gotta weigh all the factors, know who's where, who's waiting for what, what game they might already be in, and what effect the new game is likely to have on the existing games in your room. When the positives outweigh the negatives, you go for it.

al

* contrary to what some might suppose from my posts regarding tipping and what not, making floor decisions, including what games to start, based solely on what will make the dealers the most money, is collosally bad policy for a supervisor. The house and the drop should be the first consideration. A major part of the house's best interest includes keeping the customers happy, you should never be in a situation where you've got unhappy customers! What will make the dealers the most tips is not the primary concern of a good floorman. Get the games, get the drop, make the customers happy, and the dealer's tips will take care of themselves. Keep in mind I say this having spent lots of time on both sides of the box, both dealer and floor.

Re: detailed answer
 

I read through 3/4 of your post and all I can think is that -- right now -- I want to kick you in the nuts.

Re: detailed answer
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are few things more annoying to players than having new games start (whether the same limit or different limit), having the new games wind up killing your old game, then you finding yourself shut out from the new games.


[/ QUOTE ]

Amen Borther Al. this is what happened to me at the Wynn and why I plan to play elsewhere on my next trip to Las Vegas.

Re: detailed answer
 

What's with the constant references to kicking people in the nuts on this forum?

Re: detailed answer
 

[ QUOTE ]

Overall, it's a balancing act with no 100% clear cut solution. I, as a floorman, try to balance the needs of the house (get maximum drop) with the needs of the players (get the most players happily playing poker), with a side of the dealer's interests* in mind. It's good judgement on the part of the floor that makes these decisions either good or bad. You've gotta weigh all the factors, know who's where, who's waiting for what, what game they might already be in, and what effect the new game is likely to have on the existing games in your room. When the positives outweigh the negatives, you go for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Al -

Thank you for an insightful and interesting post; as a player who is sometimes frustrated by floor decisions regarding management of the room, it's invaluable to hear the other perspective. It's easy not to think about this at all as a player.

I do have one more question about your examples -- would you say that there is an inherent priority given to those who are currently seated in a game?

If the changing conditions of the cardroom dictate that a new arrangement of tables/games is more desirable (profitable for house, profitable for dealers, accomodating for players), then shouldn't it not matter who got there first?

Example: in my 1-3 scenario, only two of the players were gung-ho about playing NL, but five of the others expressed that they would rather play NL than 1-3. Let's say that there are 12 people in the room (which was basically the case):

given their first choice:
10 would rather play NL
2 would rather play 1-3

.. and NL obviously generates more rake and more tips.

Wouldn't it make more sense to open the NL with 10, even though the 1-3 would break and therefore piss off two players? Before the two gung-ho NL players sat at 1-3, there were 8 seated and happy.. with the NL game, there would be 10 seated and happier (as well as the, albeit marginal, financial benefit to the cardroom).

Obviously this is one example, but it is the situation as it actually occurred -- and it illustrates the idea that a preexisting game has priority over a newly-forming game that is guaranteed to fill.

Re: detailed answer
 

[ QUOTE ]
What's with the constant references to kicking people in the nuts on this forum?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think if you look around the forum, you'll find that it hovers on or around one poster in particular. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: detailed answer
 

If you can't figure that out, I'll just have to kick you in the nuts.

Sheesh! Amateurs. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

al

Re: detailed answer
 

[ QUOTE ]
There are few things more annoying to players than having new games start (whether the same limit or different limit), having the new games wind up killing your old game, then you finding yourself shut out from the new games.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is definitely true -- but I don't know that the problem is necessarily the fault of the floorman. It seems like simple capitalism/economics to me.

If I open a successful business... but a store opens down the street which sells the same product at 1/2 price, I will lose all of my business AND be effectively excluded from his market (how could I possibly justify buying my own product somewhere else??)

.. however, he can't be faulted for opening his competitive business, and the government can't be faulted for giving him an operating license.

edit: typo

Re: detailed answer
 

It is not the same, you are talking about competeing businesses, and we are talking about not shutting your customers out of the action. If someone is giving you action and especially if they have been playing shorthanded or otherwise helping to keep a game open, I think you have a resposibility to keep them in the action if it is possible.

I guess it is logical to consider that the games competing with each other but don't forget the players in the original game are also customers of the cardroom.

Like Al said, this is difficult decision.

Re: detailed answer
 

[ QUOTE ]
I do have one more question about your examples -- would you say that there is an inherent priority given to those who are currently seated in a game?

If the changing conditions of the cardroom dictate that a new arrangement of tables/games is more desirable (profitable for house, profitable for dealers, accomodating for players), then shouldn't it not matter who got there first?


[/ QUOTE ]

In some senses, yes, it doesn't matter. If it's apparent that starting a 4-8 game will be the best overall choice for the room, then you should probably start it, even if it's possible that a couple of existing 2-4 players might not be best served individually in this choice. But remember that customer satisfaction is a MAJOR consideration, which may balance out, or even exceed, the needs of the house's drop figures. For instance, if someone gets pissed off in the poker room, and subsequently decides they'd rather take their green chip blackjack and craps action to another casino, you've failed to keep the house's best interests in mind.

[ QUOTE ]
Example: in my 1-3 scenario, only two of the players were gung-ho about playing NL, but five of the others expressed that they would rather play NL than 1-3. Let's say that there are 12 people in the room (which was basically the case):

given their first choice:
10 would rather play NL
2 would rather play 1-3

.. and NL obviously generates more rake and more tips.

Wouldn't it make more sense to open the NL with 10, even though the 1-3 would break and therefore piss off two players? Before the two gung-ho NL players sat at 1-3, there were 8 seated and happy.. with the NL game, there would be 10 seated and happier (as well as the, albeit marginal, financial benefit to the cardroom).


[/ QUOTE ]

Great question. Complicated tho. But still a great question.

There is probably no completely simple answer here. Obviously you don't want to leave anyone unhappy. But if ten want no limit and only two want 1-3 spread, then you should probably spread the no limit. In reality tho, no limit doesn't generally make the rake you think it might, the game is slower, and particularly with 1-2 no limit, the average pot size might actually be SMALLER than it would in a limit game with similar blinds.

Another consideration is the number of dealers and breaks you have at the moment. Suppose you have nine tables with 12 dealers. That's a break after every 3 tables. Well here, you could go to a three, three, and four game push easy enough. This should make you somewhat more inclined to go for a new game. But if you're already at a five game and a four game push, you might be somewhat less likely to start it, as five games (2 1/2 hours) is pushing it more than three games would for the length of time a dealer can reasonably go without becoming fatigued starting to make mistakes. Dealing is taxing, more so than it may appear from the actual quantity of physical labor being performed. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] It might not be metal roofing in texas [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img], but dealing ain't as easy as it looks....

al

Re: detailed answer
 

[ QUOTE ]
It is not the same, you are talking about competeing businesses, and we are talking about not shutting your customers out of the action.

[/ QUOTE ]

How true. For instance, if you can go play at boulder station for 5%, $3 max, it's certainly not worth it to leave center strip (all pissed off and rejected) because you got shut out of a game, even tho you can save some on the rake.

[ QUOTE ]
If someone is giving you action and especially if they have been playing shorthanded or otherwise helping to keep a game open, I think you have a resposibility to keep them in the action if it is possible.

I guess it is logical to consider that the games competing with each other but don't forget the players in the original game are also customers of the cardroom.



[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. A primary concern is not to upset those who have already been loyal customers to your room, keeping an existing game going. Intentionally offending these clients, even if they are small stakes players, could ultimately be catastrophic for your business, particularly if they are local players.

al

Re: detailed answer
 

[ QUOTE ]
the game is slower, and particularly with 1-2 no limit

[/ QUOTE ]

I really doubt this. I deal a 2/5 NL game and play 1-2 NL. I know I get out many more hands of NL than I do 2/4 or 4/8. But I do agree that in Vegas the house is probably making more in most 2/4 or 4/8 games than they do from a 1/2 or 2/5 NL game. However the original poster was talking about TS and I'm not sure what they are raking in the NL games but when I used to play there they took $3 per pot on $3-$6 and $5-$10 ($10-$20 and higher were time) -- I don't mean $3 max -- I mean $3 per hand regardless of pot size. If they are taking that in the NL game that would be a pretty strong drop.

Re: detailed answer
 

It is possible that the presence of a "drop on the flop" or a "dead drop" might sway certain decisions as far as the house goes. I did not consider this when I made my comments, I was considering standard las vegas strip rakes.

al

Re: detailed answer
 

Al has this covered pretty good. The floor has a responsibility to do what is in teh casino's best interest. He rightly points out that what the floor would do at 1 pm is a lot different than what the floor would do at 1 am. The floor has to be able to make judgements about if his new game will go and if the old game will continue to go. Places that say thay have to have 6 to start a new game have instituted a rule rather than allowing the floor to use judgment. This is generally a sign that the poker management doesn't really understand these issues so in hiring a floor staff they have no way to make a determination if a potential hire understands these issues (some of the poker management I have seen recently might not even know that a good floorman can tell if a game will go or not go).

As far as the original poster bringing a deck of cards to the table you just made the floor's life difficult (the phone will be ringing wanting to know what is going on etc). As a winning player you have the same customers as the casino and a lot of your interest are in the same place (you both want more games etc). It is a really bad idea to aggrevate them. If you were to ever produce a deck again in this casino you should expect to not return.

Re: detailed answer
 

Best thread I’ve seen here in a long long time. Al has shown the “stream of consciousness” type thinking that a “thinking” floorman goes through.

A strong game with a list is better than two games that could break at any time – is a pretty good general rule. Al has gone well beyond that.

Thanks and congrats. If more of my bosses had been like you, I might still have (want?) a job. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Another floor issue
 

Al, I'm curious as to your opinion on a discussion I have had recently with the floor at Potowatomi (Milwaukee). They have 10 tables, and a typical configuration these days are 1 $1-$5 stud game, 4 2/4 games, 3 5/10 games and 2 $200 3/5 NL games. When they opened, a 10/20 and 20/40 game was always going, but in the past 18 months, the 20/40 game became a 15/30 game, which merged into the 10/20 game, and nowadays, the 10/20 game is hit & miss.

The problem is that by the time enough people are around to play 10/20, either the rest of the tables are filled up or they don't want to hurt the games that are currently going on. I try to argue that the card room should make a special effort to provide a higher limit game even if it risks hurting one of the several lower-limit games because there is a value in having a variety of limits available, especially limits that they are struggling to keep.

As it is, I now travel to a casino an additional 1/2 hour away because I know they will have a 20/40 game running while this nearby casino may not even have a 10/20 going. I have to think that other are doing the same. Does it make good business sense to try to prevent this, or am I offbase?

Re: Another floor issue
 

Great question. No easy answer tho, I am afraid.

It's a major downfall of the poker craze that no limit is killing the bigger limit games. The fact they're spreading 3/5 no limit is what's killing the middle limit games like 20-40 or 15-30. There is nearly as much, or more money on the table in a 3-5 no limit, but the sharks have to pay far smaller blinds, and have far more leverage to make the tourists or bad players make major mistakes. It's a sad fact, but no limit is almost "killing poker" as we used to know it.

One other factor, spreading extremely small games like 2-4 isn't really a good thing. It does keep the tables open, but they'd stay open anyway if you just ran 3-6 or 4-8. The difference is smaller rake for the house, but a higher % of the pot going bye-bye for the players. Thus you have more overall losers. Just watch the money in a 2-4 game go down the slot one day, it goes surprisingly fast. Same chit with 1-4 stud or whatever.

It's kinda frigged up but I almost yearn for the dayz back in 2000-2001 before the WPT when it was all limit poker, because at least you could find middle limit games when you wanted them. Hell, I played nothing but limit for YEARS, only with this WPT nonsense did I ever start with no limit.

As for the cardroom, they SHOULD make an effort to spread a higher limit game like 10-20. 10-20 makes more for the house than 2-4, no doubt, but takes far less off the table stakes of players (proportionately). It also provides satisfaction for the higher limit customers. In addition, with so many 2-4 tables, they can certainly spread one less and still make everyone happy. You don't want to completely alienate your middle limit players. But unfortunately, this is mostly what's happening these days. It's all 2-4 and 1-2 no limit. Bummer.

al

Re: Another floor issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
It's all 2-4 and 1-2 no limit. Bummer.

al


[/ QUOTE ]

Limits higher than $2-4 are live and well in the midwest but i was having a discussion with one of the best players at Caesars, IN and he mentioned that the $20-40 game rarely ever went because everyone wants to play the 2-5 NL $200 minimum buy in.

Caesar's IN doesn't spread a capped buy in NL of any kind but that may change as demand increases. The limit games are very healthy except for $6-12 it hasn't taken off as well as I had hoped but it is still new to the room. I think most of the 5-10 players moved down to 4-8. The 2-4 limit always has a waiting list. The 10-20 is very healthy and often has multibple tables.

Re: Another floor issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
Al, I'm curious as to your opinion on a discussion I have had recently with the floor at Potowatomi (Milwaukee). They have 10 tables, and a typical configuration these days are 1 $1-$5 stud game, 4 2/4 games, 3 5/10 games and 2 $200 3/5 NL games. When they opened, a 10/20 and 20/40 game was always going, but in the past 18 months, the 20/40 game became a 15/30 game, which merged into the 10/20 game, and nowadays, the 10/20 game is hit & miss.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where they are going wrong is with the wrong smaller games. For a room this size the best progression in limits is 3-6 6-13 10-20. 5-10 should be avoided as the nature of the game with singal chip bets kills the action and provides for an al around poor experience. 4-8 shoud be avoided as it is too close to 6-12 for both to me successful. That leaves 3-6, when a 3-6 is spread there is no need for 2-4 in this size room. A case can be made for spreading a single 1-2 game, if done in conjuntion with poker lessons etc to bring new players in (right now this can probably be dropped as new players are flocking in anyway). When you progress from 3- 6-12 10-20 you are able to support the higher limit games. Most 10-20 players will play 6-12 while waiting for a seat etc. If someoen allows 4-8 into their room it consumes the limits around it and the jump from 4-8 to 10-20 is too big for players to make.

Re: Another floor issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
The limit games are very healthy except for $6-12 it hasn't taken off as well as I had hoped but it is still new to the room. I think most of the 5-10 players moved down to 4-8.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I mentioned above 4-8 consumes all the games around it. I would never spread either 5-10 or 4-8 (in a market taht can supposrt 3-6 6-12 and 4-8 of course I would spread the 4-8, but there aren't too many of those). They should combine the 2-4 and 4-8 into 3-6. 3-6 6-12 10-20 allows enough space between games that they don't kill each other but enough overlap to give players options (10-20 players will play 6-12 whilw waiting and 6-12 players will play 3-6 if they have to wait etc).

Re: Another floor issue
 

I don't have any delusions about Caesar's In being well run but it better now than when I started playing almost four years ago. the new room is really going to be nice when it is done and the atmosphere is much freindlier.

Re: Another floor issue
 

Excellent observations Randy. Note that Mirage constantly has 6-12 and 10-20, but MGM, who spreads 4-8, has trouble getting 6-12 and 10-20 to stay running.

al

Re: Another floor issue
 

Interesting observations and it makes a lot of sense. What do you think are reasonable conclusions when observing a poker room which consistently spreads 3/6, 4/8, 6/12 and 8/16 as low limit games and 20-40 through 75-150 as high limit (max bet of 150 by law)? Is the implication that the local market for this casino is crowded enough that they can get away with spreading a, theoretically, sub-optimal set of games, or is there something more complicated afoot? The room in question runs about 45 tables all told.

Re: Another floor issue
 

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting observations and it makes a lot of sense. What do you think are reasonable conclusions when observing a poker room which consistently spreads 3/6, 4/8, 6/12 and 8/16 as low limit games and 20-40 through 75-150 as high limit (max bet of 150 by law)? Is the implication that the local market for this casino is crowded enough that they can get away with spreading a, theoretically, sub-optimal set of games, or is there something more complicated afoot? The room in question runs about 45 tables all told.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a larger room that I was referring to above. It appears they have a large enough market to suppor games that are close together. If it was up to me I would try to spread a 12-24 to smooth the transition up to 20-40 and so a 20-40 player could play something closer to their limit if there is no seat in their game of choice. It is harder to draw any more specific conclusions wiht out looking at the actual game numbers (hours per day each game goes etc).