Newbie tournament rules question!

[speedracer]

A buddy of mine is hosting our first Hold"Em tournament this weekend, and we're trying to get a comprehensive set of rules for all to follow and agree on. Here's a question that has come up:

Assuming we're starting with 15-18 players, we'll have 2 tables going. As players are eliminated, should the tables be "re-seeded" to keep them roughly at the same player count? Or do we let each table dwindle at it's own pace until we are left with 8 finalists to put at the final table? Seems the real tournaments do this "reseeding", but when I mentioned this I got a lot of flack and resistance.

Opinions/suggestions/personal experience?

Thanks in advance--I look forward to learning more from this esteemed group.

[punkass]

You should definitely try to keep the tables even. Do this at random by drawing cards to switch a player. Why let one table dwindle down to 2 and the other at 8?? Just doesn't seem logical.

[speedracer]

I agree with you. I assume the pros do this for a reason. I just need to be able to back up WHY it's done this way.
The arguement I'm hearing is that it's a disadvantage to a player to have to move to another table (in case he feels "good" at his table and has picked up some tells). Also, by not evening out the tables there is an incentive to eliminate more players on your table, thus reducing number of opponents at your table.

[jon_1van]

It is true that getting moved from one table to another can be annoying. But it will only be annoying if you know enough to properly react to something you have figured out about your opponents.

Getting moved makes what you knew about your old opponents worthless and forces you to waste time learning about the new opponents.

But an equally good reason to keep the tables equal size is so that everyone will have a similar tourney experience.

If one table goes down to 3 or 4 players they will be playing a distinctly different game (even though both tables are playing holdem) then a table that still has 9 or 10 players left.

Jon

[Kurn, son of Mogh]

I think you'll get alot more flack if the tables become unbalanced. If you have one table at 8 and one at 4, the table with 4 is effectively paying double the blinds.

[DJA]

The main reason imo for keeping the tables equal is the blinds. It is unfair for a table of 2 to have to always be paying the blinds when a table of 8 has to pay the blinds 75% less.

Also, it has to do with the number of hands you get to play. You will see a lot more hands heads up then you would 8 handed. For games that have no blinds, this is the reason for keeping the tables even.

I don't believe a random selection for moving people is the best method. Try to move position to position. If the player eliminated last was going to be in the big blind move the big blind from the other table over. This is the fairest situation.

When you have eliminated enough players to get down to a single table then you can randomly select positions.

Just My Thoughts,

[Guy McSucker]

As others have said, you need to rebalance the table numbers so that the blinds are pressuring all players equally.

This is taken very seriously in "real" tourneys. For example, in a tournament where the whole final table of 9 gets paid, it is common to play "hand for hand" at the two-tables-of-five stage: a hand is dealt at each table, both are played to completion, and then another hand dealt, so that both tables play the same number of hands. This prevents one table sitting still waiting for someone from the other table to bust.

Of course that's unlikely to be needed in your tournament, but it illustrates how seriously this is taken.

Have fun with it!

Guy.

[Greg (FossilMan)]

No, it's not necessarily an advantage or disadvantage to be the guy who is moved. Most people prefer not to move, but if you're faster at picking up on new opponents than they are at picking up on you, it would be a plus to move.

The reason to move players is because the players at the short-handed table are facing more pressure from the blinds (or the bring-in if it's stud), and you should play more hands at a short-handed table than at a full table. Thus, if you don't balance tables, what you will tend to end up with is just a couple of players surviving from one table, but having big stacks of chips, and a lot of the players from the other table surviving with shorter stacks. But, if your tournament is paying 5 places, the guys at the fuller table are MORE likely to make the money than the guys at the short-handed table. Which creates an imbalance of equities.

Do what somebody else said. When a player gets knocked out, if his table needs a new player from the other table, take the person from the other table that is in an equivalent position and fill the just-vacated spot.

Example. 6 guys at a table, 7 at the other. Do nothing. Next hand, 6-handed table. #1 is the SB, #2 is the BB, etc. #4 goes broke this hand, and table now has only 5 players. The #4 seat position should be filled from the other table. This seat is about to be in the UTG position, i.e., the first person to act after the big blind. Go to the other table, wait for them to finish the hand they're on. Take the player who is about to be in the UTG position, and move him to the #4 spot on the other table. You now have 6 players at each table, and everybody is in the same spot relative to the blinds as they were in before, as closely as possible.

Later, Greg Raymer (FossilMan)

[cferejohn]

As others have said, you must reseed in order to make it fair. Otherwise the smaller table is at a disadvantage (or at any rate they are playing a different game). As an alternative, you could have both tables play down to a final 3, no matter how long it took, and them move those 6 to a final table all at the same time.