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.

[LearnedfromTV]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point is that, especially later in the night, main games tend to be filled with players who have been there for a while and have big stacks. There aren't as many chips on the must move tables so usually people moving into the main game are understacked. This is actually more a symptom of stupid 40 or 60 BB caps (having to rebuy at the main game presents the same problem as having to move there, in general new players who would like to cover the table can't) than must moves, but the must move structure exacerbates the problem because chips flow to the main game and stay there.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
Who wants to roll into that with $400?

[/ QUOTE ]

People who don't understand how to play no limit?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
If the other game is better, or maintains its players, shouldn't the main table players try to get in over THERE?


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. However, many of these 'regulars' aren't there to get in the 'better' game or to maximize winnings. They're just passing the time.

b

[goofball]

The Wynn having must moves for 15/30 is retarded. I'm fine with doing it as a new game is starting but once a game is going for an hour keeping it a must move - barf.

I played almost every day at the bellagio from 1/1/05 to when teh wynn opened and never had a problem with a game breaking that I percieved to be due to them not having a must move. It makes then way less likely to have 2 games (two 7 handed last way longer then 1 10 and 1 4) it screws with the flow of the game, and it forces people to do things, fish especially don't like that and I've seen too many get told they have to move and instead todecide to quit an d head out into the pit someitme.

[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.