Need slightly larger table - what to do (2 Viewers)

[joseywales]

My current octagon is 50" from edge of padding to edge of padding. We usually play 7 players and it's nice. 8 is ok and we even had 9 once. Right now, I send out invites to the "regulars" and as spots open, I add alternates. What I'd like to do is invite everyone and be able to handle 8 or 9 if everyone shows. An oval is an obvious answer, but the "look" and the size of my room won't allow it. An octagon or perhaps a round work better.

I believe I have three options:

1 - I could have a new tabletop made (60" I'd guess) and replace my current top. To be honest, I really like my table now. It needs a new cloth, but other than that it's one of the nicest I've seen, perhaps not as fancy as many here, but it's nice.

2 - I don't know. Maybe a second octagon table makes sense, but I didn't want poker "dominating" my movie/sport/poker room. Same reason I didn't go with an oval. I could consider a folding oval, I guess. Storage gets to the a PITA though.

3 - Have a new 60" tabletop made, which could drop on top of current 50" table. Honestly, it would be identical to my current top, except maybe I change the cloth color. My primary concern here would be damage to the table underneath. I'm thinking the new top would have 8 "pegs or legs" that would align with the cup holders on my current tabletop. My table is sturdy, so I'm not sure I would need more support. I know most here don't like armrests, but our group loves them. I really like them for two function reasons:

1 - if we have 8 or 9 payers, rarely is every player in one hand. So players who fold, can sit back comfortably and that creates space for players with live hands.

2 - as you might have guessed by now, I really like my table. The more leaning players do on the arm rests, the less wear and stress on my table/rail/vinyl/padding.

Thoughts?

 

[MrWitti]

Nice table!

First thought: tape player + "going to Jerusalem"...

But that's maybe not the answer you're looking for.

U can get some additional space when you use less wide chairs. Often they define the space a player needs.

 

[joseywales]

Thanks. I had this conversation last night about the wider chairs. I "stole" my chairs on CL. They have arm rests, but the chairs could have been narrower. That said, I notice thin people don't play poker...

 

[courage]

If you nixed oval seems like only options are smaller chairs or new 55 - 60" top.

 

[upNdown]

Is 60 inches too big? I know I've read some discussion of it, but I can't remember where. Can people reach the middle of the table on a 60 inch?

 

[courage]

Is 60 inches too big? I know I've read some discussion of it, but I can't remember where. Can people reach the middle of the table on a 60 inch?

Not usually. 55-58 might be sweet spot.

 

[pltrgyst]

....3- Have a new 60" tabletop made, which could drop on top of current 50" table. Honestly, it would be identical to my current top, except maybe I change the cloth color. My primary concern here would be damage to the table underneath. I'm thinking the new top would have 8 "pegs or legs" that would align with the cup holders on my current tabletop....

Instead of the legs, I'd recommend buying a piece of short pile carpeting, cutting it to the size of your present table, and using that as a pad, pile down to prevent marring.

Alertnatively, you could cut a larger piece of carpeting and mount it permanently to the underside of the new top, with the pile down, making management easier.

 

[ssanel54]

Leave the table as is, but replace the rail with a round rail. This can give you more circumference, and round is easier to shift an odd number of players and fit comfortably.

 

[joseywales]

Leave the table as is, but replace the rail with a round rail. This can give you more circumference, and round is easier to shift an odd number of players and fit comfortably.

Ugh...that rail was hand-stitched. Hard to let that go. Haven't found any upholstery folks willing to try it. Il

 

[Seeking Alpha Social Club]

Is 60 inches too big? I know I've read some discussion of it, but I can't remember where. Can people reach the middle of the table on a 60 inch?

I think this is from the thread you were thinking of. IMO, 60" would be an easy reach to the middle. Here's me reaching to the middle of my 68" oversized octagon.

Here's a picture of me reaching, comfortably seated (leaning against the rail), taking chips from the middle of my larger octagon table. I'm 5' 10". Anything beyond the middle of the table requires lifting my butt off the table or an assist. I also stacked WAY MORE chips than I usually win to see if chip stack is an issue. It was not.

View attachment 75138 View attachment 75139 View attachment 75140

 

[Jeff]

I liked Ssanel's comment. Having a round edge would help.

 

[ssanel54]

Ugh...that rail was hand-stitched. Hard to let that go. Haven't found any upholstery folks willing to try it. Il

Dont trash the octagon rail! You can still use it for nights when that size table will work. I am proposing just building a new Roound Rail that you can put on instead of the octagon when you need to accommodate a larger group. The playing surface remains untouched.

 

[T_Chan]

Have you considered removing the arm rests of the chairs? The chairs are nice, by removing the arm rests you get back a lot of space. Sure the players get a bit cozier with each other but at least they can with the arm rests out of the way.

 

[Mental Nomad]

You can try removing the arms on half the chairs, and alternating - that will still make a fair amount of extra space.

Or, for fun, try removing all the left armrests - the chairs still get closer together, and nobody feels slighted, right? (jk, the lefties will be outraged. Or the righties. Or something.)

 

[joseywales]

@T_Chan and @Mental Nomad, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one coming up with whacky ideas. Yes, I have considered removing the arm rest and of removing both arms from half of the chairs. You want arm rests, get to the game early! I'm laughing at the idea of one armrest per chair. I had not thought of that. That's unusual, but plausible. One player swears that armrests never bang into one another at our table, but i'm sure they take space nonetheless.

@T_Chan thanks for the comment on the chairs. They were overkill, but I was MegaTon44ing Craigslist years before I knew Dan and found these from a downsizing insurance company. They were advertising computers, telecommunications. cubicles, oh, and some chairs as well. I literally saw half of a chair in one picture. I saw the brown and gold and thought they might match my table. I removed the seating from my mini-van and headed up there. They had 7 Steelcase chairs, some were never used (not necessarily a good thing, as their "hydraulics" are still fussy today). $35/chair. The office manager was an elderly woman and she was just shaking her head at what they were selling them for. Now my players are spoiled though.

@ssanel54 ok, now I'm calm. You might have a winner here. So I just build a drop on rail, theoretically dropping into my cup holders. Then hybrid in @pltrgyst idea to protect the rail.. Hmm...the new rail would have to come out enough, so that that it would clear the bottom rail enough to have cupholders in the top rail. Man, can we come up with some goofy ideas, or what??? I'm gonna noodle this one through.

All of the above said, keep in mind that I'm hosting a game this week. So far, I've invited every regular, and nearly every alternate, and still don't have 6 players!! Maybe I'm trying to solve a problem that does not yet exist! Makes me wonder if my plan of installing a basement kergerator and running lines through my gameroom floors isn't a bit overkill...nah.

 

[ssanel54]

Hmm...the new rail would have to come out enough, so that that it would clear the bottom rail enough to have cupholders in the top rail. Man, can we come up with some goofy ideas, or what??? I'm gonna noodle this one through.

Save yourself a ton of effort, and just use slide under cupholders with the new rail. It gives you the added benefit of being able to sit however you want in relation to the cupholders.

Spacemonkey had a thread detailing how he expanded an octagon table with a round rail, but it may have been on CT. Ive played on his table, it worked great.

 

[Jambine]

Not usually. 55-58 might be sweet spot.

Too true. This is 58" (outside) and I would say that's max diameter for being able to reach everything without help.

 

[jbutler]

I am proposing just building a new Roound Rail

Ah the classic Scottish round.

 

[joseywales]

Too true. This is 58" (outside) and I would say that's max diameter for being able to reach everything without help.

I have to ask this, on an oval, do only orangutans play? Why do folks obsess over reach on octagons and rounds, but the guy at the end of the oval is SOL for reaching the pot? IF the theory that with an oval, or any table where the pot is within "reach" at least "someone" can reach the pot and push it down the lane?

 

[joseywales]

Save yourself a ton of effort, and just use slide under cupholders with the new rail. It gives you the added benefit of being able to sit however you want in relation to the cupholders.

Spacemonkey had a thread detailing how he expanded an octagon table with a round rail, but it may have been on CT. Ive played on his table, it worked great.

To be honest, I'm not a fan of slide under holders, HOWEVER, in this instance they might do the trick. This "over rail", as I'm coining it, will be function over form. That said, I still struggle with round vs decagon. I just like odd, but symmetrical, shapes I guess. Either way, thanks for the tip!

 

[Jambine]

I have to ask this, on an oval, do only orangutans play? Why do folks obsess over reach on octagons and rounds, but the guy at the end of the oval is SOL for reaching the pot? IF the theory that with an oval, or any table where the pot is within "reach" at least "someone" can reach the pot and push it down the lane?

On an oval, the dealer can reach & push a pot IF they are seated in the middle. On the ends, no way.
On my 58" round, I can just reach the middle and might have to stand to push the pot directly opposite my position.
I'm thinking there is no really good solution to your problem here......

 

[joseywales]

On an oval, the dealer can reach & push a pot IF they are seated in the middle. On the ends, no way.
On my 58" round, I can just reach the middle and might have to stand to push the pot directly opposite my position.

I should have clarified, self dealt games. Some of my guys complain about paying $7 for pizza, so paying a dealer is a luxury they can't live with! The irony? My biggest whiner deals part time...go figure.

 

[BGinGA]

It's possible to create a larger-diameter round rail that would sit snugly on top of the existing table (essentially a raised rail), eliminating the need to also create a larger playing surface area.

However, an oval table - portable or not - is the best solution to your issues, both space-wise and cost-wise.

 

[joseywales]

It's possible to create a larger-diameter round rail that would sit snugly on top of the existing table (essentially a raised rail), eliminating the need to also create a larger playing surface area.

However, an oval table - portable or not - is the best solution to your issues, both space-wise and cost-wise.

I'm noodling that through now. My current table has a padded track, so I'm thinking I place a soft, supportive material in there. The over rail would be the width of the current rail and track. That's an 8" rail though. Also, that would put the playing surface below the rail. Still noodling...

 

[BGinGA]

Yeah, I wouldn't go that route. Keep the racetrack, and the new rail is just raised. Lots of tables are built that way on purpose. .

 

[Mental Nomad]

I have to ask this, on an oval, do only orangutans play? Why do folks obsess over reach on octagons and rounds, but the guy at the end of the oval is SOL for reaching the pot? IF the theory that with an oval, or any table where the pot is within "reach" at least "someone" can reach the pot and push it down the lane?

Right, there are usually four or six people at an oval that can reach the pot, and any one of them can pull the pot and then push it towards either end.

At a round table that's big enough, nobody can comfortably reach past the center. Standing up to stretch over and reach the far end of the pot just feels rude after laying down a beat. It feels much more friendly if somebody else can push them from the other side at least to the halfway point.

At an oval, it just feels more like, "swipe left, swipe right..."

 

[joseywales]

Yeah, I wouldn't go that route. Keep the racetrack, and the new rail is just raised. Lots of tables are built that way on purpose. .

I hear you. I don't care for that, BUT function, not form,is key for this over rail that won't be used too often anyway.

 

[ssanel54]

I'm noodling that through now. My current table has a padded track, so I'm thinking I place a soft, supportive material in there. The over rail would be the width of the current rail and track. That's an 8" rail though. Also, that would put the playing surface below the rail. Still noodling...

Im not sure what you mean by "over rail" but the fact that you are calling it that leads me to believe something is getting lost in translation.

What I was trying to propose was that you remove the existing Octagon rail that is currently on your table. This may be held on by a couple of bolts or screws on the underside, but remove them, and the rail should pop off in one piece without doing any damage to it.

You then want to build a second rail that will have a round outer edge (the inner edge can either be round or octagonal whatever you prefer). The rounded outer edge will give you more circumference and allow more room for additional players than an octagon. The second rail will sit back on top of your table/racetrack the same way that the octagon rail does.

You will now have two fully functioning rails, and can switch them on or off depending on the size of your group. Hope that makes sense.

 

[joseywales]

Im not sure what you mean by "over rail" but the fact that you are calling it that leads me to believe something is getting lost in translation.

What I was trying to propose was that you remove the existing Octagon rail that is currently on your table. This may be held on by a couple of bolts or screws on the underside, but remove them, and the rail should pop off in one piece without doing any damage to it.

You then want to build a second rail that will have a round outer edge (the inner edge can either be round or octagonal whatever you prefer). The rounded outer edge will give you more circumference and allow more room for additional players than an octagon. The second rail will sit back on top of your table/racetrack the same way that the octagon rail does.

You will now have two fully functioning rails, and can switch them on or off depending on the size of your group. Hope that makes sense.

Thanks. I see what you're saying. I have to look close, or discuss with the guy who built the tabletop. The padded track might have added complication to the installation of the rail. Regardless, I'm hesitant to mess with that rail, as I really like the table. Over rail is probably a bad term for what I'm now thinking. As suggested above, I'm really thinking about an outer rail. It would have to be octagon, butt up against the current 4" rail. So a 4" outer rail, wrapped around the current 4" rail, creating an 8" rail. That's a wider rail, but again, it's only for rare occasions where I have more than 8 players.

Maybe some simple swing out arms, from under the current rail/table, and the outer rail just drops on top. Again, not an ideal play situation, but it won't be in play that often.

 

[jadillon]

Did you check if a 72" x 42" oval might fit. That is the table I am having built. Seats 8 fine, 9 tight