Preferred Table Diameter for 8 players (2 Viewers)

[Coyote]

Diameter?

50.5in which is less than the ideal 52in for 7. Still functional and cosy (in winter)

 

[Taghkanic]

View attachment 531184

Gorgeous work.

 

[BGinGA]

I don’t have to ask around about the first point because it’s scientific fact. Or geometrical fact. It’s a more efficient shape because it gives players more perimeter while keeping them closer to the middle.
as to the second point, yeah, everybody can spread out in a circle when the table isn’t full. Score a point for circles. Doesn’t mean the octagon plays bad short handed. I own one. I’ve played lots of 6-handed games on it. it’s fine. Seriously. If it’s fine for 8, it’s fine for 6.

We are clearly using different science/geometry.

For two full (8 player) tables (round and octagon) of equal diameter footprint, the octagon places players sightly closer to the table center, but at the cost of less available space per player.

If you match the octagon's 'distance-to-center' dimension on the round table, then the octagon has sightly more space per player, but at the cost of a larger footprint.

And in either case, the round allows more flexibility and ease to increase the amount of space per player when the table has fewer than 8 players (or to squeeze in a ninth player if desired).

The round table's entire space can be easily (and perfectly) utilized when at less than maximum capacity, but a short octagon table offers no direct or indirect benefits as player numbers decrease (the excess table space is not easily or comfortably utilized, thus it's a less efficient design).

It's fine to state octagons as a preference, but don't kid yourself that they are more efficient. The science/geometry doesn't back it up.

Imo, a modified elipse design works best for 8 players, but is harder to build.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Some recent events have significantly increased the probability that I will be purchasing tables. Since I am exploring all shapes, I might at well jump into the debate

We are clearly using different science/geometry.

For two full (8 player) tables (round and octagon) of equal diameter footprint, the octagon places players sightly closer to the table center, but at the cost of less available space per player.

If you match the octagon's 'distance-to-center' dimension on the round table, then the octagon has sightly more space per player, but at the cost of a larger footprint.

And in either case, the round allows more flexibility and ease to increase the amount of space per player when the table has fewer than 8 players (or to squeeze in a ninth player if desired).

The round table's entire space can be easily (and perfectly) utilized when at less than maximum capacity, but a short octagon table offers no direct or indirect benefits as player numbers decrease (the excess table space is not easily or comfortably utilized, thus it's a less efficient design).

It's fine to state octagons as a preference, but don't kid yourself that they are more efficient. The science/geometry doesn't back it up.

Imo, a modified elipse design works best for 8 players, but is harder to build.

You make a very fine example of the words of Obi-Wan Kenobi, that truths depend on the point of view!

So from a certain point of view (my own, to be exact), the following isn't true:

It's fine to state octagons as a preference, but don't kid yourself that they are more efficient. The science/geometry doesn't back it up.

My point of view is that I want to maximize the playing area which is constrained by the size of the room. In that regard, octagons are more efficient in delivering more playing area. Basically this

If you match the octagon's 'distance-to-center' dimension on the round table, then the octagon has sightly more space per player, but at the cost of a larger footprint.

...but since the overall footprint doesn't matter, just the end-to-end measurement, you get more space per player at no "cost".

I'm not really sure in which circumstances that "larger footprint" of an octagonal would be an issue. When using drink carts, maybe?

 

[BGinGA]

When the larger footprint is rendered unusable (or more/too cramped) by the available room size.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I'm not really sure in which circumstances that "larger footprint" of an octagonal would be an issue. When using drink carts, maybe?

When the larger footprint is rendered unusable (or more/too cramped) by the available room size.

This is usually because of the end-to-end measurements (north-south and east-west) I would assume, in which case an octagonal table with the same measurements as a round table will offer a larger playing surface. What I meant with my question was: What set of circumstances would lead you to say Ok, a round that's 56" across fits, but not a 56" octagonal ?
(I'm not being sarcy, I am genuinely curious)

 

[Taghkanic]

Octagonal vs. circular footprint: Are you drawing the circle inside or outside the octagon? Because if it’s outside, the octagon has a smaller footprint.

 

[Taghkanic]

vs.

 

[LeLe]

It really depend on your player if there are more “we’ll build” then most it better to get the 60

 

[Mr Winberg]

@Taghkanic, thanks for the pic.

So what I meant with my post was that when trying to fit maximum playing surface into a room you need to look at where people sit. If the choice is between circle and octagon, then you will be looking at the left picture since 8 players would sit in the same spots in the left picture, but not in the right one. And in the left, the octagon gives each player more space, hence it's more efficient.

What I was confused by was the circumstances in which you would (with regards to the left picture) have to choose the circle over the octagon because the octagon's "larger footprint is rendered unusable (or more/too cramped) by the available room size.". Like, is it because you have a lamp or something just where one of the octagon's edges would be, and you simply can't move it?

 

[LeLe]

Always the right one for me it more flexible

View attachment 696574 vs. View attachment 696572

 

[Jake14mw]

This discussion of the amount of space from an octagon vs. round always reminds me of this...

 

[BGinGA]

Footprint being defined as the maximum floorspace dimensions of the table, which plays a role in how much room is needed to house it (wall clearance, etc.).

The octogon on the left offers more room per player, but that comes with the downside of a larger footprint than the smaller round table contained within it.

The octogon on the right offers less room per player for the same size footprint as the round table that surrounds it.

And in either case, if the table is not full at exactly 8 players, the corresponding round table is superior with more flexibility to better accomodate non-8 seating.

But neither design goes to 11 -- that's reserved for elipse-type tables.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Footprint being defined as the maximum floorspace dimensions of the table, which plays a role in how much room is needed to house it (wall clearance, etc.).

The octogon on the left offers more room per player, but that comes with the downside of a larger footprint than the smaller round table contained within it.

I guess this is where I'm confused: In the context of the left picture, given that the players will sit in exactly the same positions regardless of circle/octagon, can you please give a practical example of when the circle would fit but not the octagon?

In my experience, in most (if not all?) cases, it's the measurements along the x and y axises that matter, and they are identical between the two.

Another way to put it: If you add chairs to the two pictures, aren't the two footprints identical? Serious question from a potential buyer.

And in either case, if the table is not full at exactly 8 players, the corresponding round table is superior with more flexibility to better accomodate non-8 seating

Agreed.

But neither design goes to 11

Which totally sucks!!

 

[Taghkanic]

With chairs, the octagon which fits inside a circle would result in slightly less space being used overall, since players could sit a few inches closer to the center.

 

[Mr Winberg]

With chairs, the octagon which fits inside a circle would result in slightly less space being used overall, since players could sit a few inches closer to the center.

Yes, of course. But that's in line with that the right octagon is simply smaller then the right circle, both in footprint, playing space, and distance to center. I'm talking about the left picture where I'm under the impression that the octagon offers more efficient use of space because it has more playing space with an identical footprint when chairs are included, which they usually are when playing poker. ;-)
But since this isn't facebook, I am actually trying to understand the other point of view, that it's somehow less efficient.

That's why I'd like to know the circumstances when a 56" round would fit a room but not a 56" octagonal. I will probably be buying this fall and don't want to make mistakes.

 

[Seeking Alpha Social Club]

Three words: oct o gon

++1 this ^^^^ all day long.

For 8 players, especially if anybody weighs more that 180 pounds, and is taller than 6', you really need a 60" table to be comfortable. My main table is actually 62", and I prefer it over my 60" table for 8 players. And yes...you do need to push chips or cards from time-to-time, but my peeps are considerate and that has never been an issue.

I play on both round and octagon, and absolutely positively prefer octagon for one very important reason. Octagon tables have defined space. When I play with 8 on a round table, I find myself constantly telling people to move out of my space. I'm a pretty nice dude, but nothing is more annoying than people sitting spread eagle taking half my space. My buddy Gunny has smaller round tables (either 54" or 56") and playing with 8 people is BRUTAL. Last time we played 8, I was between 2 big dudes and their knees were literally touching in the middle of my sitting area.

I'd like to try an ellipse, but I'm not sure if the lack of defined space will bug me or not.

@dsdunbar1, come on down for the Memorial Week meet up and you can try all of them for yourself

Edit: my measurements on the octagon are from the middle of the sitting area, not from corner to corner.