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

[dtbog]

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.

[autobet]

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)

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.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

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.

[TakeMeToTheRiver]

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.

[steamboatin]

[ 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.

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

[dtbog]

[ 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.

[dtbog]

[ 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]

[Al_Capone_Junior]

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