[Al_Capone_Junior]

[ 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