Must move rule- game killer or savior?

[Lottery Larry]

Can someone explain the original logic behind must-move games, from the HOUSE'S perspective, during busy/weekend periods?

I understand that people are wacko about full tables, especially in split games.
I know that the floor is trying to maintain a solid table, but doesn't the "must move" rule do more harm than good (except possibly for higher limit games with no large potential player pool)?

Here's the situation- $2/4 full kill O/8 (non-split $40 pot is the kill), two table with must move, at the Taj. I sat down at 11 a.m on a Sunday, decent fill in the room, people coming in.

When I eventually ended up at the main table, it was later in the afternoon. Eventually, when the must move table dropped to around 6 players, that table died.

Can someone explain why this would make sense, from the house's perspective? Rather than letting two games run with 8+ players and filling in seats with new players, they killed any potential for players to sit down and try out an Omaha/8 game, a kill game, etc.

I know it's all-HE, all of the time now, but that really didn't sit well with me and I thought it was short-sighted. Why not suspend the must-move rule when the crowds are flowing and you have tables to cover the games?

The killed table later filled up with a $1/2 NL game, I believe- that wouldn't have anything to do with this, would it?

[RR]

The must move is not in the casino's best interest. Some places the "nitty daytime players" are able to get the poker room manger to put in rules they like because they are there when he is to complain.

The idea of a must move it to protect the palyers that have been playing from having another game start and break their game.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
The idea of a must move it to protect the palyers that have been playing from having another game start and break their game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, Randy. Now, is even THAT idea a good one? If the other game is better, or maintains its players, shouldn't the main table players try to get in over THERE?

I know that the regulars need some protection, as they provide the game base that maintains a room and game, but it seems to be a bit much. Late night, slow season, I could see a must-move rule...

[redfisher]

I hate must move tables. I've seen too many players who were producers just drop out when they get moved to the main game. They just don't have enough chips. At our 2/5 main game it's common to have stacks at a $300 max buyin game of $1500. Who wants to roll into that with $400? If you get moved at $250 you can only buy another $50. I think it's ridiculous, since there's always a list until late at night.

[csuf_gambl0or]

[ QUOTE ]
I hate must move tables. I've seen too many players who were producers just drop out when they get moved to the main game. They just don't have enough chips. At our 2/5 main game it's common to have stacks at a $300 max buyin game of $1500. Who wants to roll into that with $400? If you get moved at $250 you can only buy another $50. I think it's ridiculous, since there's always a list until late at night.

[/ QUOTE ]

huh?

i don't play NL, but i know enough to know that if you're from a must move table then you can take your current amount to the new table.

[Bill King]

ive been at some must move tables at my regular 20/40 game and have literally begged the floor guy to let me stay because the game is so good, but they have to do it.. it keeps the games full, and the rake at the maximum.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
and the rake at the maximum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so there is no misunderstanding the above quote is false; must move games lower the total rake.

[Photoc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and the rake at the maximum.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just so there is no misunderstanding the above quote is false; must move games lower the total rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. 2 tables of 7 = 2 tables of full rake/more hands per hours. 1 table of 10 and 1 of 4 = less hands per hour at full rake on 10-handed, more hands per hour and 1/2 or less rake 4-handed and that game could break or the players may sit for awhile till its gets more players. Hereby cutting the rake even further.

[SA125]

Along the lines of must move games, one reason why I like the idea of a main game is a situation that's happened to me more than a few times at the Taj.

I get there real early and I sit in the only game 20-40 game going. The room starts to fill and a must move game is started. Then a third table opens, which becomes the new must move game. You're still at the original game and say to the floor "we're still the main game right" and he says "no, we have two now."

Later on it starts to empty out and is back to two tables. Your original main game now loses a few players before the original must move game and is designated the new must move game. You've been playing for a long time and holding that game together and get boned while the original must movers are assured of their seat game. Total BS yet happens all the time.

[Don Olney]

This must move stuff should be so easy...
Main game is going.
Second game starts -- is a must move-- floor takes list of players on the game.
Seat opens in main game---
Floor goes to must move game and asks " Would anyone here like to move" If answer is no, if there is a list first name on the LIST goes to main game.
If there is no list and no one wants to move, then first name on the must move list is moved.