Tournament - Balancing Unbalanced Tables (2 Viewers)

[MrCatPants]

Quick question for those of you who run MTTs - do any of you have a table that fits less than your other tables as your 2nd/3rd/4th table? How do you handle? Do you jam everyone in? Or are you ok running unbalanced tables for comfort?

Two "examples"...

if I had a table that sat 10, 10, and 6, and had 24 attendees - do I go 9/9/6 and balance the best I can from the larger tables until I get to 20? or do I have to go 8/8/terrible jammed in uncomfortable 8 and prioritize breaking the small table?

If i had a table that sat 10 and one that sat 8 and had 18 attendees - 10/8 or 9/"figure it out fatsos"9?

 

[MC_CPA]

This is always tricky for me. Never know how many people will show up could be 60 could be 80 could be 30.

I start with tables of 6 for the first hour and let them autobreak when they get to 4. In your example it would require ~4 tables which might not be feisable.

 

[MrCatPants]

This is always tricky for me. Never know how many people will show up could be 60 could be 80 could be 30.

I start with tables of 6 for the first hour and let them autobreak when they get to 4. In your example it would require ~4 tables which might not be feisable.

so you even it out regardless of table capacity? And tied it to the smallest capacity table?

 

[doublebooyah85]

Quick question for those of you who run MTTs - do any of you have a table that fits less than your other tables as your 2nd/3rd/4th table? How do you handle? Do you jam everyone in? Or are you ok running unbalanced tables for comfort?

Two "examples"...

if I had a table that sat 10, 10, and 6, and had 24 attendees - do I go 9/9/6 and balance the best I can from the larger tables until I get to 20? or do I have to go 8/8/terrible jammed in uncomfortable 8 and prioritize breaking the small table?

If i had a table that sat 10 and one that sat 8 and had 18 attendees - 10/8 or 9/"figure it out fatsos"9?

The most I would go would be 8/8/6. Therefore, not invite as many as you did.

However your third table can’t fit a barrington?

 

[MC_CPA]

so you even it out regardless of table capacity? And tied it to the smallest capacity table?

Yes I would do that. Or have people play in the living room table as the 4th table if you're comfortable with that. So 6/6/6/6 elsewhere rather than 8/8/6. That way everyone gets to play more hands.

Or, you can ask if anyone wants to play at the 6 table or would rather play at the 8 table. Players love choice. That would let you do 9/9/6 in your 24 player example.

 

[MrCatPants]

The most I would go would be 8/8/6. Therefore, not invite as many as you did.

However your third table can’t fit a barrington?

8/8/6 as maximum imbalance?

lets assume that the tables are a "fixed" data point and that any more than 6 would cause uncomfortability/t rex arms.

would you T rex arms someome or run an unbalanced table I guess is my question.

 

[krafticus]

sounds like you just need to get a bigger table ...

All of my tables are the same size, so I can't help you on that one. I prefer balance tables though, so would go 6/6/6 or find another table to get the other 6 placed.

 

[MrCatPants]

ok. no more 'adjust tables' or "get a new table". one time, if the tables were fixed, balance them and cause t rex arms, or dont balance them?

 

[MC_CPA]

T rex arms might cause some players to inadvertantly see others cards... I wouldnt risk it.

 

[Dodger]

I’m in the ‘balance as best you can’ crowd.

If it were me, I would probably limit my tournies to 20, and start with 7/7/6.

Not ideal if you want a larger field, but probably the max you can go to get as close to balanced as possible.

It also changes tourney dynamics a bit, when you break the 3rd table down after 2 eliminations and go to 9/9 on the bigger tables. But that tends to happen anyway.

But hey - cash game is ready to start on the smaller table.

 

[krafticus]

Quick question for those of you who run MTTs - do any of you have a table that fits less than your other tables as your 2nd/3rd/4th table? How do you handle? Do you jam everyone in? Or are you ok running unbalanced tables for comfort?

Two "examples"...

if I had a table that sat 10, 10, and 6, and had 24 attendees - do I go 9/9/6 and balance the best I can from the larger tables until I get to 20? or do I have to go 8/8/terrible jammed in uncomfortable 8 and prioritize breaking the small table?

If i had a table that sat 10 and one that sat 8 and had 18 attendees - 10/8 or 9/"figure it out fatsos"9?

Let me guess ... the small table is the green one ...

Green table weak !!

 

[Mr Winberg]

8/8/terrible jammed in uncomfortable 8 and prioritize breaking the small table?

limit my tournies to 20, and start with 7/7/6.

Since you're even considering having 8 at the smaller table, my recommendation is a middle ground of the two options above, 8/8/7 for 23 payers. When down to 21 (7/7/7) you could implement a house rule that if the next elimination is on one of the larger tables, you move a player from the smaller one (even though nobody would move in this case in normal circumstances).

So not quite the r-rex arms of 8/8/8, and you'd be down to 6 players on that table after just 3 eliminations.

Maybe also entertain the idea that if the first or second elimination is at the smaller table (down to 6), you don't rebalance. Purists might hate it, but might be worth considering.

 

[harrysallout]

….Prays for a yellow seating chip

 

[upNdown]

Or, you can ask if anyone wants to play at the 6 table or would rather play at the 8 table. Players love choice.

I wonder how many people would choose the 6? I love a 6 max tournament if every table was 6 max. But I don’t think I’d want to play in a tournament THAT unbalanced for the first hour or two or whatever.
I think OP needs a bigger table or fewer friends.

 

[MrCatPants]

Ok. Once more, with feeling.

To everyone who is like "invite less people" or "get a fourth table" or "replace a table"...that is not the question.

The question is - if faced with a fixed attendance list and fixed tables where one table is smaller (none of these variables are changing for a one time event!)- overload the small table for balance and cause t-rex arms, or play unbalanced tables until the first few bust outs?

I'm adding a poll. There is no third+ option.

 

[upNdown]

Overload

 

[krafticus]

Ok. Once more, with feeling.

To everyone who is like "invite less people" or "get a fourth table" or "replace a table"...that is not the question.

The question is - if faced with a fixed attendance list and fixed tables where one table is smaller (none of these variables are changing for a one time event!)- overload the small table for balance and cause t-rex arms, or play unbalanced tables until the first few bust outs?

I'm adding a poll. There is no third+ option.

based on that, I'd T-Rex 7 on the smaller table (if it is rounded, and not a 6-sided table), and go 9/8/7. If a player from the table with 9 busts, no player movement needed. If a player from the 8 table busts, move a player from the 9 table over. If a player from the 7 person table busts, again, bring a player from the 9 table over. Go until you are at 7/7/7. Here, you can then combine to 2 tables of 10, or, now if a player from the bigger tables busts, move one from the smaller table over.

If you can really T-Rex 8 into the smaller table, I'd go 8/8/8 and pull from the smallest table first if a player from a larger busts first.

That's what I would do.

 

[krafticus]

It tough with a tournament. In theory, the smaller table will see more hands per orbit than the larger table (and players ranges "should" adjust to that), but it gives them the advantage over the larger tables who see fewer hands at a blind level and such. The closer you can get to even, the better it is for the game, and fairness.

 

[upNdown]

Would it be crazy to suggest putting the 8 smallest bodies on the small table? That could reduce the umcomfortableness significantly.

 

[MrCatPants]

Would it be crazy to suggest putting the 8 smallest bodies on the small table? That could reduce the umcomfortableness significantly.

seat by BMI?

 

[upNdown]

seat by BMI?

Hey, the only thing worse than playing at a crowded table is playing at a crowded table next to a huge guy.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Ok. Once more, with feeling.

To everyone who is like "invite less people" or "get a fourth table" or "replace a table"...that is not the question.

The question is - if faced with a fixed attendance list and fixed tables where one table is smaller (none of these variables are changing for a one time event!)- overload the small table for balance and cause t-rex arms, or play unbalanced tables until the first few bust outs?

I'm adding a poll. There is no third+ option.

Even though I can be a stickler sometimes, I voted for 9/9/6. I feel that practicality sometimes trumps sticking to the rules. Keeping your players comfortable is important!

And whether or not it can be an advantage or disadvantage being on the smaller table, I still think it's fair since you draw for seats.

Sorry if I didn't answer your question properly first time around. I'm still curious what you think of it? It's just 1 less, 23 vs 24. I think it's a pretty good option if you can live with 1 less. Quoted for your convenience:

Since you're even considering having 8 at the smaller table, my recommendation is a middle ground of the two options above, 8/8/7 for 23 payers. When down to 21 (7/7/7) you could implement a house rule that if the next elimination is on one of the larger tables, you move a player from the smaller one (even though nobody would move in this case in normal circumstances).

So not quite the r-rex arms of 8/8/8, and you'd be down to 6 players on that table after just 3 eliminations.

Maybe also entertain the idea that if the first or second elimination is at the smaller table (down to 6), you don't rebalance. Purists might hate it, but might be worth considering.

 

[doublebooyah85]

Bigger tables have a significant advantages bc there are more chips in play.

 

[LotsOfChips]

Bigger tables have a significant advantages bc there are more chips in play.

Not always, depending if there are rebuys in play.

The biggest impact of unbalanced tables (IMO) is that players at smaller tables are forced to put in blinds much more frequently. Not such a big issue at the start of the tournament, but when the blinds are huge, and when Big Blind Ante comes into effect, then the difference between 10 players per table and 6 players per table has a HUGE impact on the game.

Also playing 6 max vs 10 full ring has a huge impact on the opening hand range from early or middle position.

As well, players at a smaller table tend to play many more hands per hour than those at bigger tables (less players tanking, talking instead of paying attention, etc.). This also has a huge effect on the game.

In short, unbalanced tables provide significant advantages or disadvantages to players, based on which table they are assigned. This is just plain wrong in a tournament (IMO)

I vote for keeping the tables as balanced as possible. I agree with those who suggest a 8-8-7 23 player game (or get a larger table instead of the 6 seater).

 

[MrCatPants]

MrCatPants: the question is A or B

PCF: how about buy furniture?

MrCatPants: seriously just A or B are the only options

PCF: ok just change to different furniture

MrCatPants: A or B only, people

PCF: uninvite players/kick out players

MrCatPants: A OR B!!!

PCF: well i choose an A/B hybrid, while kicking players out and changing furniture.

MrCatPants: quits PCF

 

[krafticus]

2 tables of 12 and 2 at the little table. Done!

 

[SCPaul]

Put some tape lines on the tables to separate it into eight groups of three players each. Makes it really easy to deal no matter how short your arms are.

 

[merkong]

MrCatPants: the question is A or B

PCF: how about buy furniture?

MrCatPants: seriously just A or B are the only options

PCF: ok just change to different furniture

MrCatPants: A or B only, people

PCF: uninvite players/kick out players

MrCatPants: A OR B!!!

PCF: well i choose an A/B hybrid, while kicking players out and changing furniture.

MrCatPants: quits PCF

You going nowhere...

But why is the attendance fixed? Someone got the goods on you?

 

[MrCatPants]

You going nowhere...

But why is the attendance fixed? Someone got the goods on you?

Because it is. It's not the point of the question.

 

[merkong]

Because it is. It's not the point of the question.

Well it kind of is if I wouldn’t have a component that would put me in a pinch…

I voted.