Table Shapes (a bit of a rant) (1 Viewer)

[Taghkanic]

In a previous life I used to do some writing about about industrial design, product design, that kind of thing. These articles often focused on ergonomics and usability: Did the product’s shape, size materials actually contribute to it working as advertised?

So: In my opinion, the shapes of standard poker tables make no sense.

The standard “stadium” shaped table is a disaster, from a usability standpoint. If you’re seated on the rounded corners in a self-dealt game, it’s a giant pain in the neck to deal. To really see the player next to you, you have to turn way too far to the side.

When there is a dealer cut-in on a stadium table, the dealer blocks seat 9 (and 10, in some tournaments) from seeing much of anything going on in seats 1 and sometimes 2, and vice-versa.

Frankly, I’d rather play 8-handed on a round resin table in a self-dealt firehouse game than 10-handed at a casino stadium table. At least you can see everyone.

The WSOP final tables, I notice, are different. So they know the stadium shape is a problem. They are shaped more like a kidney bean (on the convex side) and flat on the other side where the dealer is. Such tables are also used on shows like Poker After Dark or other games where (a) the camera doesn’t want to have to pan all the way around the table and (b) there are usually only 6-7 players.

And don’t get me started on the problem at so many casinos (and some home games) of leg room at their tables.

I have started doing some thinking and (draft) writing on this topic, and considering what the true ideal shape would be. We take stadium tables for granted, but really, why should we? For that matter, why should we even take 9-handed games for granted? This really seems to be a convention of the modern era of Hold ’Em. (No one was playing 7-card stud 9-handed, right?) And it mainly seems to be driven by casinos wanting to cram as many people as they can in per table.

Sorry for the rant, but this topic is much on my mind now, and I’d love to get some feedback. Do people share my aversion to these standard table shapes, or am I alone here? How do you feel about those octagon tables which were a common rec room item in the 60s and 70s? Maybe some totally different shapes should be considered (though they would be a little trickier to build in the garage).

Thanks for reading this far, if anyone did...

 

[BGinGA]

Fwiw, I think seven players is the perfect number for nearly all poker games. It allows most poker variants to be played efficiently, and helps open up Hold'em to being more than just a full-ring nit-fest.

Optimum table shapes will vary depending on a) the actual game being dealt, b) whether or not the game utilizes a dedicated dealer, and c) the number of players to be accommodated. There is no one-size/shape-fits-all solution, unfortunately.

However, I've long felt that the optimum shape for a seven-player dedicated-dealer poker table is a pedestal-mounted semi-circle with a wide/shallow dealer cut-out , similar to some blackjack tables. It fits six players very comfortably (seven in a pinch) with adequate arm- and leg-room, players have unobstructed view of all other players and cards, dealer can easily reach all player positions and has plenty of working space for cards, chips, and muck management, and if backed up against the wall, there is easy in/out access to all seats (except the dealer spot).

Something similar to a cross between these two:

 

[FDLmold]

All my home tables, built or bought, will be round or octagons. I think eight max is fine for any poker game. I doubt I will ever know 8 or 9 non a-holes who would play poker with me anyway. Most days 7 seems like a stretch.

 

[gopherblue]

Round for 6-8 players. Elliptical for 7-10.

 

[TheBigTater]

If given a choice I'd always prefer to play on either a (1) round or (2) octagon table and 5-8 players is the perfect amount.

 

[chubbyone]

Following.

I am really close to pulling the trigger on a "real table."

Likely chanman 8-person basic oval.

This thread scares me. Games will be self-dealt, so no dealer obstruction but still a player will be in that spot.

Why does the oval dominate the market? I love the look, but likely only because that's what's engrained into my head as "pro"

Is round really the preferred option for self-dealt? Gorilla makes a "pub style" which is a fat oval. Maybe a best of both worlds? The walls of my space may feel crowding with a round...

Just ranting with you!

 

[Taghkanic]

My friend has a Saarinen “Tulip” table in her dining room. It’s 96" long and 54" wide, but more of a true (tapered) oval. Looking at it the other day, I realized its shape might make the ideal poker table.

The pedestal base means plenty of legroom, and flexibility in positioning seats. The narrowed oval means better sightlines for everyone. She has had as many as 10 sit at it comfortably for dinner, but I would use this for an 8-player game...

Real Saarinen tables with marble tops run up to 10K (!), but knockoffs with wood or veneer tops sell for less than 10% of that. I was thinking if I can find one on eBay at a good price, then I could make a topper for it.

 

[Taghkanic]

Another suggestion I had (more out there) is for a dealer table which is shaped like a truncated guitar pic:

 

[chubbyone]

Another suggestion I had (more out there) is for a dealer table which is shaped like a truncated guitar pic:

Now there's a great custom guitar themeded table idea. Someone should def do this. And I agree it seems like a great dealer option, though I imagine the dealer side could have some curve to allow a little more reach and comfort. (Wouldn't look as pick like though with the extra concave curve along that edge)

 

[chubbyone]

Lotta table leg to deal with, but has your top shape!

 

[Rhodeman77]

The problem with the elliptical shaped table is that it is VERY wide in the middle making pushing pots difficult. Though it does give more inches per player than the an oval with the same length and has much better sight lines too.

Round tables are great for self dealt games of 8 players or less, but they take up more space than an oval table. If you have the room to fit it it is the best option I think.

 

[Mental Nomad]

This thread scares me.

Don't be scared.

I think threads like this are about seeking, "perfection," and should not be taken as pointing out some sort of horrible error.

I host a 6-player game where we have decent 6-player round tables available... if we have more than 6 coming, I bring my 10-player oval. The regulars always wish I'd bring my oval all the time, because they all like it better.

It plays in my apartment as a 10-player table. With topper, it's my dining room table. We like being able to play up to 11, and have done so. We're usually playing 7 or 8, peak at 10, and drop to 7 or 8. Plays fine.

Yes, players on the ends have a little trouble dealing. Others at the table help push the cards around. No big deal.

Players who don't elect to deal have someone else deal for them... we have them sit on the ends. Again, no big deal.

Perfect? No. Let's all continue to seek perfection.

End thread derail, back to the debate... I think ellipses look beautiful.

 

[Jeff]

View attachment 117636

My friend has a Saarinen “Tulip” table in her dining room. It’s 96" long and 54" wide, but more of a true (tapered) oval. Looking at it the other day, I realized its shape might make the ideal poker table.

The pedestal base means plenty of legroom, and flexibility in positioning seats. The narrowed oval means better nightlines for everyone. She has had as many as 10 sit at it comfortably for dinner, but I would use this for an 8-player game...

Real Saarinen tables with marble tops run up to 10K (!), but knockoffs with wood or veneer tops sell for less than 10% of that. I was thinking if I can find one on eBay at a good price, then I could make a topper for it.

View attachment 117637

That is a beautiful table.

 

[Taghkanic]

The problem with the elliptical shaped table is that it is VERY wide in the middle making pushing pots difficult.

It’s an important point... Raking chips from the center has to be easy. OTOH 54" is only 3" more from edge to center (6"/2) than a table made of 48" ply... I may ask my friend if I can experiment on her table.

 

[mike32]

I play in a 20 player league so two full tables of ten is the norm. I was recently looking at Chanman's ten player round table as an option. But as stated above pushing pots could be difficult. That being said I love playing with 8 at an octagon, it instantly makes the game more social imo. I suppose that shows my true colors as a home poker aficionado.

Anyone have experience with a ten player round table?

 

[Jambine]

View attachment 117636

My friend has a Saarinen “Tulip” table in her dining room. It’s 96" long and 54" wide, but more of a true (tapered) oval. Looking at it the other day, I realized its shape might make the ideal poker table.

The pedestal base means plenty of legroom, and flexibility in positioning seats. The narrowed oval means better nightlines for everyone. She has had as many as 10 sit at it comfortably for dinner, but I would use this for an 8-player game...

Real Saarinen tables with marble tops run up to 10K (!), but knockoffs with wood or veneer tops sell for less than 10% of that. I was thinking if I can find one on eBay at a good price, then I could make a topper for it.

View attachment 117637

My last three builds have been ellipse oval about 7x4. Perfect for 8 players but can fit 10.
I'm totally sold on this shape

 

[gopherblue]

View attachment 117636

My friend has a Saarinen “Tulip” table in her dining room. It’s 96" long and 54" wide, but more of a true (tapered) oval. Looking at it the other day, I realized its shape might make the ideal poker table.

The pedestal base means plenty of legroom, and flexibility in positioning seats. The narrowed oval means better nightlines for everyone. She has had as many as 10 sit at it comfortably for dinner, but I would use this for an 8-player game...

Real Saarinen tables with marble tops run up to 10K (!), but knockoffs with wood or veneer tops sell for less than 10% of that. I was thinking if I can find one on eBay at a good price, then I could make a topper for it.

View attachment 117637

Uhh...I have this exact Saarinen table, and I'm working with @T_Chan to make a topper! The dimensions were initially a concern, but given the shape of an ellipse, the reach for dragging pots isn't as bad as some think. It's only slightly deeper than a regular table, but the shape is actually narrower over much of its area.

BTW, you can find the authentic Knoll tables for much cheaper if you know where/when to look, although I agree, knockoffs are 90+% of the quality at a fraction of the price. We got lucky on ours and paid a fraction of retail list.

 

[Taghkanic]

I did a quick Photoshop analysis of distances to the center of the table... A 54" x 96" ellipse seems to have both advantages and disadvantages in relation to a 48" x 96" stadium (or what people are calling an oval) as far as distances to the center of the table, to reach the pot. See the diagrams below for eight-handed games:

So with the more standard table, with people seated at the ends, seats 2 and 6 are 24" from the center of the table, where the pot most often is. They are going to probably have to do all of the work pushing the chips, because seats 1, 3, 5 and 7 are 39" from the center, while two and 8 are 48" away.

With the elliptical (“tulip”) table, it is more practical to arrange the players so no one sits on the ends. This means that seats 1, 2, 5, and 6 are each 27" from the center—3" farther away, but there are four people with a shot at grabbing chips, not two. Seats 4 and 8 are 5" closer than before (43" instead of 48") while seats 3 and 7 are each 4" farther (43" instead of 39").

What I don’t know (without trying it live) is whether differences of 3-5" are critical. What seems to me at least as important is how many players are in a position to move chips/cards around. Pots of course don’t always fall in the same place—sometimes the action is more on one end of the table, depending who is in the hand. On the elliptical, I am tending to think, you have more people in striking distance of objects needing to be moved, whereas on an stadium/oval you effectively put all the work on two seats...

Just thinking out loud here...

 

[Taghkanic]

Uhh...I have this exact Saarinen table, and I'm working with @T_Chan to make a topper! The dimensions were initially a concern, but given the shape of an ellipse, the reach for dragging pots isn't as bad as some think. It's only slightly deeper than a regular table, but the shape is actually narrower over much of its area.
View attachment 117707

No way! That is an awesome coincidence.

Interested to hear about your topper project... I made a topper for a 96" x 44" rectangular table in my home, as our second table (I also have a very nice custom stadium oval table, which is about 98" x 46" iirc). I used hi-density closed cell foam from a supply company near me, and used a 3M spray adhesive to stick a good quality low-nap wool onto it.

Rather than trying to finish the edges, I just let the wool hang about 5" off the edge. Because of the quality of the wool (which I also scotcguarded to protect against spills), I often leave it on the table for weeks... It looks great, and people don’t seem to miss having a rail.

I found the HD foam was a bit hard, so I got some really basic 1/4" open cell foam to put under it, and the feel is just about perfect.

One big problem I recently encountered was that after one game, when we weren't going to be playing again for a month, I removed and folded up the top in a hurry. When I brought it back up, there were two creases in the foam. I have tried everything to try to fix this, but nothing seems to bring this type of foam back into shape. I am going to have to make another one... Luckily the project was very cheap. It's just a bummer to do the labor again.

 

[Taghkanic]

P.S. Thoughts on the chair positioning above? I see you have seats at the ends, at least for everyday use...

P.P.S. I’m biding my time, waiting for a 96" Knoll tulip table to pop up in nearby Hudson, which has dozens of dealers. I know most of them, and am hoping to swing a deal...

 

[Poker Zombie]

My first table build was a 54" octagon. It's my favorite table for 8 or fewer players, and is what I would recommend if you have only 8 players max.
My second table was a 8 player elongated octagon. It was built to be a dual-purpose table (poker and sewing). It functions like a 8 player oval (or as a great sewing table).
My third table is a 10 player oval.

However, to @Taghkanic 's OP, I will contradict him to point out that the 10 player oval makes perfect sence, and is the only choice in many circumstances...

An octagon is impossible to fit in a 9th player. In a Multi-Table Tournament you will have 4 at one table playing very short-handed while you have 5 playing at the other until you get down to 8. I found this to be a very big deal. I played many tournaments with two 8-player tables, and the records showed the short-handed table was almost always going to be the one to lose a player before the final table. After building a 10 player table, the last 2 tables play at 5 and 6 players before making the final table. The records show that there is no statistical difference in which table is more likely to lose the last player before the final table.

Ellipses are nifty, but they have a larger footprint. Casinos base profit by square foot of floor space. My house is also limited in floor-space.

I could not realistically jam in a 10 player ellipse without knees banging together with the floor space. Being able to see an opponent - fixed by leaning forward - takes a back seat to fairness of sitting 9 players at 2 tables.


In short, each host needs to look at what they need, and buy for those needs. Many times, the shape of standard poker tables make perfect sence.

 

[gopherblue]

P.S. Thoughts on the chair positioning above? I see you have seats at the ends, at least for everyday use...

P.P.S. I’m biding my time, waiting for a 96" Knoll tulip table to pop up in nearby Hudson, which has dozens of dealers. I know most of them, and am hoping to swing a deal...

For poker I'd likely have the chairs arranged as you had them in your mock-up. No need for anyone on the end unless we had 10. My design with Tony is still in the beginning stages, but hopefully it will work out.

Moderne in Hudson always seems to have a decent selection of tables, but at the long price. Craigslist, especially in NYC, is your friend!

 

[Taghkanic]

I could not realistically jam in a 10 player ellipse without knees banging together with the floor space. Being able to see an opponent - fixed by leaning forward - takes a back seat to fairness of sitting 9 players at 2 tables.

I agree with many of your points... Though I would say that there are trade-offs both ways. I’d rather occasionally be at a slight statistical disadvantage for a short period than not be able to see 20% of the players at my table for long stretches of a game.

Likewise, as another poster mentioned above, as the tables get larger, it changes the character of the game. 9- and 10-handed, people are much more able to sit back and just wait for monsters. (Creates a nit-fest, I think the poster said.) Someone else mentioned playing 11-handed in their game... I dunno about that.

At a recent casino tournament I played in there were a ton of late arrivals. The director kicked off the tournament with multiple short-handed tables, rather than condensing them to tables of 9/10 and then expanding as people arrived. At my table, I was actually playing four- or five-handed for about 70 minutes, which really blew up my expectations as far as blind structure. Other tables were playing at 5, 6, and 7.

It seemed unfair, but shit happens. I think it is our challenge as poker players to come prepared to manage variance of all kinds... Seating is one of many forms of variance, IMHO. Comfort is another.

The number of players in the game I host varies session to session—a two-table tournament, followed usually by cash. The game only happens if we have at least 14, and I no longer allow more than 18. So optimizing for exactly two tables of 9 is not really something I can count on. Sometimes we start at 9 and 9, sometimes 9 and 8, sometimes 8 and 8, sometimes 8 and 7, etc. Luck of the draw if you are seated with 8 and the other table is at 9.

Ditto when we combine. Sure, sometimes we briefly are playing 4-handed on one table, 5-handed on the other. Othertimes it happens that two people bust simultaneously, or within minutes of each other.

Over time, with a crew of about 25-30 regulars playing 24-26 times a year, the vagaries of one’s table draws even out.

Other factors (e.g., what combination of regulars happen to draw for cards at your table at the outset) are equally big, or really much bigger factors thann br. I know from almost a decade of keeping records who are the top five performers in this game besides myself. If one week I get 5 out of 5 of the toughest players on my initial table, I know that some other week I will have none.

Likewise, if I get the biggest fish in our game two to my left, I expect it is going to be a good session. Other weeks, he is going to be donating to someone at another table.

Again, my point being that playing at a slight disadvantage for at most 1-2 levels because the other table has an extra players is just one more thing to account for, and not allow oneself to be rattled by... I suppose one could always play hand-for-hand if it really becomes an issue for people in a given game.

P.S., re: space taken up by ellipticals vs. stadium ovals... Ellipticals actually take up fewer square feet, assuming similar dimensions. They don't have to be wider; it happens that the one above is 6" wider than standard. But a casino could easily account for that by staggered arrangements. Poker rooms are not their big money makers, anyway.

 

[Taghkanic]

Moderne in Hudson always seems to have a decent selection of tables, but at the long price. Craigslist, especially in NYC, is your friend!

Thanks for the tip...

BTW, I’ve both bought from and sold to Scott at Moderne. The prices he tags on pieces are purely aspirational. He will come down substantially from those, usually. Expect at minimum 10-20% less, often much more if he is in mood to move something.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I agree with many of your points... Though I would say that there are trade-offs both ways. I’d rather occasionally be at a slight statistical disadvantage for a short period than not be able to see 20% of the players at my table for long stretches of a game.

Likewise, as another poster mentioned above, as the tables get larger, it changes the character of the game. 9- and 10-handed, people are much more able to sit back and just wait for monsters. (Creates a nit-fest, I think the poster said.) Someone else mentioned playing 11-handed in their game... I dunno about that.

At a recent casino tournament I played in there were a ton of late arrivals. The director kicked off the tournament with multiple short-handed tables, rather than condensing them to tables of 9/10 and then expanding as people arrived. At my table, I was actually playing four- or five-handed for about 70 minutes, which really blew up my expectations as far as blind structure. Other tables were playing at 5, 6, and 7.

It seemed unfair, but shit happens. I think it is our challenge as poker players to come prepared to manage variance of all kinds... Seating is one of many forms of variance, IMHO. Comfort is another.

The number of players in the game I host varies session to session—a two-table tournament, followed usually by cash. The game only happens if we have at least 14, and I no longer allow more than 18. So optimizing for exactly two tables of 9 is not really something I can count on. Sometimes we start at 9 and 9, sometimes 9 and 8, sometimes 8 and 8, sometimes 8 and 7, etc. Luck of the draw if you are seated with 8 and the other table is at 9.

Ditto when we combine. Sure, sometimes we briefly are playing 4-handed on one table, 5-handed on the other. Othertimes it happens that two people bust simultaneously, or within minutes of each other.

Over time, with a crew of about 25-30 regulars playing 24-26 times a year, the vagaries of one’s table draws even out.

Other factors (e.g., what combination of regulars happen to draw for cards at your table at the outset) are equally big, or really much bigger factors thann br. I know from almost a decade of keeping records who are the top five performers in this game besides myself. If one week I get 5 out of 5 of the toughest players on my initial table, I know that some other week I will have none.

Likewise, if I get the biggest fish in our game two to my left, I expect it is going to be a good session. Other weeks, he is going to be donating to someone at another table.

Again, my point being that playing at a slight disadvantage for at most 1-2 levels because the other table has an extra players is just one more thing to account for, and not allow oneself to be rattled by... I suppose one could always play hand-for-hand if it really becomes an issue for people in a given game.

P.S., re: space taken up by ellipticals vs. stadium ovals... Ellipticals actually take up fewer square feet, assuming similar dimensions. They don't have to be wider; it happens that the one above is 6" wider than standard. But a casino could easily account for that by staggered arrangements. Poker rooms are not their big money makers, anyway.

It was when my game grew from 1 table to 2 that I learned the importance of the 10 player table and why TDA rules indicate "Final tables will have a full table for the event, plus one. (9-handed events seat 10 at the final table, 8- handed stud seats 9, 6-handed seats 7, etc.). No final table should seat more than 10. This rule does not apply to heads-up events."

Now that my game is routinely bordering on the 2 or 3 table game, table size takes priority, but yes, there are always trade-offs. One should not blindly buy a table without exploring needs any more than one should buy a chip-set without deciding on what your needs (and future expectations) are.

As for the nit-fest... Play in any MTT casino tournament. You will find nits, you will find LAGs, and you will find everything in between. 10 players at 1 table do not create a table of nits. Nits will nit it up. I'e seen heads-up battles go on and on because nits will be nits. Those nits rarely make it heads up though, because the aggressors will prevail (assuming they realize a nit calling for half his stack may have them cold).

 

[Jambine]

Uhh...I have this exact Saarinen table, and I'm working with @T_Chan to make a topper! The dimensions were initially a concern, but given the shape of an ellipse, the reach for dragging pots isn't as bad as some think. It's only slightly deeper than a regular table, but the shape is actually narrower over much of its area.

I see you also have one of those large tables in your home, that is NOT used exclusively for poker. I think its called an "eating table"?
I went the opposite direction, and made a top for my poker table

 

[Taghkanic]

It was when my game grew from 1 table to 2 that I learned the importance of the 10 player table ...

I'm not clear why starting 10 would be essential as opposed to 9, if the goal is to avoid a 4/5 table split before combining.

The issue you raise is the same either way, no? It's the number you combine down to which creates the potential imbalance, not how many started out. To avoid a 4/5 split, any final table above 8 works. Unless I am missing something here...

Re: Nits: Sure. I play MTTs too. Point was that 10-handed gives an advantage to nittier play, at least at certain stages and stack sizes. Much easier to be a folding station 10-handed than in a 6-person online MTT. Sure, if you have been sitting all day watching someone VPIP 0% of the time, you can fold easily when they finally bet. But with people moving tables, this isn't always possible to know.

I just think 6-8 handed play is both a more interesting game, and one which favors skill more than 9-10. To illustrate this, imagine playing at a table of 22... what this would do to your opening and calling ranges.

But each to his own, of course. I do think game quality, comfort, usability etc. need at least as much consideration as casinos wanting to squeeze every possible table and chair nto a space...

 

[Poker Zombie]

'm not clear why starting 10 would be essential as opposed to 9, if the goal is to avoid a 4/5 table split before combining.

The issue you raise is the same either way, no? It's the number you combine down to which creates the potential imbalance, not how many started out. To avoid a 4/5 split, any final table above 8 works. Unless I am missing something here...

You're not missing anything.

My early games on a kitchen table were lucky to top 6 players. When I decided to make a table, I thought "8 seats is all I'll ever need". Then the game grew to 9 players, and I built a second table. The start of a tournament can last quite a long time - especially when we were all new and there was a lot of min-raises occurring. That was roughly 2 hours with a table of 4 and a table of 5. It kind of hurt the social aspect of the game as the 4 player table felt like a short-handed game. That is when I realized that a 10 player table would be the best option.

Since a table build runs up a couple hundred dollars (and much more if you get one built for you), I think it's important for a new host to at least consider the 10 player table. If your apartment/poker room isn't big enough to exceed 8 players, then obviously something smaller will be the way to go. If you have a large enough room that you can fit multiple ellipses, that way would be superior. My living room gets tight with one oval - an ellipse would never work. However, I can get 2 ovals in there, or 1 oval and the octagon if I know I can set up the octagon knowing that one seat will be left empty (and smooshed against the wall). With 3 different tables at my disposal, during set-up I look at all the options and make my table selections based off the attendance expected for the night.

Re: Nits: Sure. I play MTTs too. Point was that 10-handed gives an advantage to nittier play, at least at certain stages and stack sizes. Much easier to be a folding station 10-handed than in a 6-person online MTT. Sure, if you have been sitting all day watching someone VPIP 0% of the time, you can fold easily when they finally bet. But with people moving tables, this isn't always possible to know.

I don't think 10-handed gives an advantage to the nits, unless your nits never vary their starting hands based on players at the table. You can be tight and play the top 10% of hands at a 10-player table, or be equally tight playing 50% of hands heads up. What's more, in a home game you are almost always going to be 1-3 tables. It's hard to get a big chip lead before you start playing 9 or 8 handed. The advantage goes to the player that can vary their game the best to the changing circumstances. If you play 6-seat tables, you only need to know how to play the medium and short game. 10-player tables require at least some long-game skills as well.

I would love the idea of a 22-player table, but that would have to be done online, which is not as fun as real life. But yeah, starting ranges would have to be either super-tight, or extremely bluff-tastic. It's an interesting puzzle to ponder.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I meant to respond to this earlier...

P.S., re: space taken up by ellipticals vs. stadium ovals... Ellipticals actually take up fewer square feet, assuming similar dimensions. They don't have to be wider; it happens that the one above is 6" wider than standard. But a casino could easily account for that by staggered arrangements. Poker rooms are not their big money makers, anyway.

Fire codes require relatively straight egress aisleways at least 28" wide. Staggered table arrangements would not work. Sadly, I agree that poker rooms are not big money makers. That's why so many are being closed down post poker-boom.

 

[Taghkanic]

You're not missing anything.
My early games on a kitchen table were lucky to top 6 players. When I decided to make a table, I thought "8 seats is all I'll ever need". Then the game grew to 9 players, and I built a second table. The start of a tournament can last quite a long time - especially when we were all new and there was a lot of min-raises occurring. That was roughly 2 hours with a table of 4 and a table of 5. It kind of hurt the social aspect of the game as the 4 player table felt like a short-handed game. That is when I realized that a 10 player table would be the best option.

I get it now. Didn’t realize that you were sometimes dealing with having just over 8 players. Certainly in that scenario, I would not start a tourney with two tables of 4 and 5, or even 5 and 5.