Why a must move game? What is the concept?

[Mr Rick]

I don't mind must move games - especially when I am in them because I like playing short... At Foxwoods they started up a must move 10/20 LHE game with 7 players to feed one other 10/20 table. About 15 minutes later we had one seat open and the main table had a guy get up. A new floor started to seat a new player at our table - and I told her we were a must move table and the other table had a seat open. Guy on my left calls me a total idiot and I should STFU and mind my own business. I told him that is hard for me because I am an obnoxious busybody. He goes on tilt trying to teach me a lesson. I love must move games.

At Foxwoods the floor usually gives up on moving people from must move games because the place fills up quickly - especially weekends - and they have enough on their minds.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
At Foxwoods the floor usually gives up on moving people from must move games because the place fills up quickly

[/ QUOTE ]

Then the game probably shouldn't have been a must move to begin with

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The concept is to protect the players who have been playing for the longest. Imagine you and others have been playing for hours and are in the only game of a particular limit at 2am when the floor opens a new game with 5 players on the list. Then every new player goes into the new, short-handed game for a while. So in 20 minutes they've both got 7 players. Then the original table loses two more players and the game breaks, they draw for seats, and players who've been there for hours are left out.

You can argue whether that's fair or not, but that's the basic idea. Keep the game going for those folks who've been playing longest.

Some rooms do a must-move for 1 hour. When the list has enough players they'll open a new table, but make it a must-move for 60 minutes. So if enough people leave the currently running games it'll completely drain the new table and it'll die. But the only folks being impacted are the folks who sat down in the last 60 minutes. But once the new table has survived for 60 minutes it matures and ceases to be a must move.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.

The 1/2 hour to 1 hour time is fine.

It does suck to be in a game, keep it going for hours, then have it break because another game was started. Now you have to go on the list and wait another 1/2 hour to an hour to get back on a table at the limit you were just playing.

Treating everyone fair doesn't mean screwing your regulars who've put in the hours who keep the games together.

Daisy chaining them is moronic. Though it used to be standard practice around here long ago.

b

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
What about table changes? What if I like the game I was in and want to go back at some time? I guess as long as the must move is in play I am stuck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many times the must move game is better than the main game. Most in the regular game wouldn't mind going into that game. So you'd, at best, be behind them for the table change.

In my room, you'd have to cash out of your game and wait 1/2 hour to go back on the list. We actually used to do that quite a bit in my room as there was usually quite a difference in games between the 2.

b

[Siegmund]

I encountered a "may move" game - don't know what the official term is - for the first time last month in a smallish room.

Two tables running, one usually full, the other starting 6-handed and fluctuating from 5 to 9. Everyone at the second table was on a list maintained by the floor, in the order they sat down. When a seat opened in the main game, she asked each person in the second game one by one if they wanted to move or stay. 90% of the time someone moved, but it gave a much friendlier atmosphere than a must-move game, since each individual player still got to choose whether to move or not.

And yes, it looked like the second table was easier than the main game - didn't hear anyone ever ask to move to the second table. Don't know if that was against the rules or not.

[Al_Capone_Junior]

Essentially the must-move concept was invented by your local nits who start hyper-ventilating because the game is short-handed every time it gets down to NINE players. That way once they make it to the main game they can be a real jerk about yelling out "seat open, main game" five microseconds after someone leaves, and before the dealer can call it out.

In a well run room must-moves are not needed. While you don't want to start a new game and have the existing one break as a result, that doesnt mean you HAVE to do a must-move game. A good floor or brush will just make sure to keep filling seats in the first game as well as try to get the new one filled up.

[n.s.]

[ QUOTE ]
I encountered a "may move" game - don't know what the official term is - for the first time last month in a smallish room.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is how it's always done in my local card barn. It works quite well for the most part and allows the floor to keep the tables balanced when there's no board and they start to get short. Moving to the main game is always optional. Players can request to move back to the move table but they have to post (no posting when moving towards the main game) and there has to be someone at the move table willing to move up. The only downside is that when there are three tables daisy-chained it can take some time to move two people in order to seat a new player when a seat opens at the main game.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
Essentially the must-move concept was invented by your local nits who start hyper-ventilating because the game is short-handed every time it gets down to NINE players. That way once they make it to the main game they can be a real jerk about yelling out "seat open, main game" five microseconds after someone leaves, and before the dealer can call it out.

In a well run room must-moves are not needed. While you don't want to start a new game and have the existing one break as a result, that doesnt mean you HAVE to do a must-move game. A good floor or brush will just make sure to keep filling seats in the first game as well as try to get the new one filled up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
I encountered a "may move" game

[/ QUOTE ]
Monte Carlo LV does this, I think, making new NL tables "someone must move but we don't care who" for one hour. It was probably the only one of their odd rules that I actually liked. I woulda prefered no must move at all, but if you're gonna do it, this is the kinder/gentler way. Generally it seemed like it was the newest player at the table who volunteered to move; basically someone who hadn't played more than a few hands so hadn't had a chance to get a feel for the table yet.

[psandman]

Many smaller rooms that use a must move will take volunteers before they require a player to move, but that is different from a may move system.

In a may move system no player is required to move. What happens ids this, when a new player comes to play if there is a seat in the Main Game, the players in the May Move game are given the option to move to the main game. If a player elects to move to the main game the new player gets seated in the May Move game. If no one in the May move elects to take the seat, then the new player goes to the Main Game.

So if the main game is 9 handed and the May move is 6 handed, new player comes along. The Main game is going to get filled, because either a player from the may move table will go to the main game or the new player will go to the new game.

This gives prefernce to the Main Game for getting new players but doesn't protect the main game form getting short.