Overcrowded cash game

[BallinPro]

break it up into 2 different games

[TexRef]

If I was forced to leave the table and sit out after X number of hands I think that would discourage me from playing in the game.

I agree with the others - start two tables of six. The home game that I go to regularly plays even more loose than normal with 5-6 players versus 9. We actually will split 10 players into two tables of 5 rather than play a 10-player game (these guys like to gamble and play a LOT of hands! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ).

[Lottery Larry]

If you end up with a rotate-out program, I STRONGLY suggest that you occasionally sit out yourself.

Another suggestion is a auto-seat policy, if you institute a FCFS policy instead. If the numbers dictate that late arrivals have to wait for someone to bust out, and they DO wait for a while, they automatically get moved to the top of the list for the next game- a reserved seat.

As long as they arrive within X time of the start, they get to bump whomever is currently playing in their reserved seat. Not the greatest policy in the world, but everyone may not be able to make the first come, first served deadline and this gives them a chance to play occasionally.

As others have said, if there's any way possible to get a 5-6 seat table in another room, go that way and consolidate when people leave. Or, see if another facility is available somewhere?

Good luck, let us know how it turns out.

[AndyInDetroit]

Two tables seems like the easiest and most satisfying solution to me. Lots of guys struggle to get seven players to a table. Consider yourself lucky.

[Headhunter13]

Do you have a set dealer, or do you rotate the deal?
When we get 11 players, whoevever is the dealer just doesn't play that hand. It's also more efficient because he can focus on dealing and not have to worry about playing his hand as well. Also, sitting out 1 hand/orbit is far better than sitting out for x amount of time.

At 12, we generally break to two tables.

--Headhunter

[dismalstudent99]

Thanks for all the input guys.

Well, this Friday I only had 9 players, so there wasn't a problem, there the potential is still high. I have a "stable" of about 13 regular players, including myself.

I have an elliptical table that can fit 10 people, so it's more a question about physical space. So having the 11th person just deal still isn't feasible.

I do have space to open a second table. However it would be a small, wobbly folding table (ironically called a "poker" table).

BTW, my ideal number of players is actually 7-8. We mostly play PLHE and PLO, but I also like to include stud games if there are 8 or fewer players.

You guys have gotten me to think more highly of the two table option.
If I do use two tables, I was thinking of dividing the players by "low buy-in" and "high buy-in" (the "low buy-ins get the folding table, of course).

As for what I prefer, I'm indifferent between playing 10 handed and 5 handed.
However, it's possible some players would prefer a full ring, and might be willing to wait.
I've seen some players just get run over or consistently outplayed by an aggressive/better player when the table gets short.
Should I offer a vote by the players, whether to use a rotation system versus two-tables?


-ds

[pfapfap]

Rotation systems suck. I'd say the choice is between two tables or just sitting around waiting.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
(the "low buy-ins get the folding table, of course).

[/ QUOTE ]

Bad, BAD idea to automatically designate the low-rollers as the ghetto group.


[ QUOTE ]
Should I offer a vote by the players, whether to use a rotation system versus two-tables?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most definately. Or, have one night with rotation and another with two tables and see which works better for the GROUP, not for you.

[dismalstudent99]

I've hosted a bunch of multi-table tournaments, where as TD I learned to rule with an iron fist.

But with a MT cash game, aside from regulating chips, how much control should a host exert over the "other" table? Specifically regarding the stakes, betting structure and games.

I'm leaning towards just letting the 2nd table do whatever it wants (majority rule, I suppose). However, I can imagine a situation where someone had anticipated playing under a certain set of rules, but then suddenly a majority of the second table wants to double the stakes, or change the game, or change the betting structure, etc. This might be "unfair" in some sense. But I suppose that person could just wait to play at the main table... but, then again, waiting defeats the purpose of two tables...

As for who gets relegated to the folding table, I suppose it can be saved for the last 5 people to show up, which should seem fair... and encourage promptness.

-ds

[pfapfap]

I put late people on the crappier tables. Tho' I also let people move as new folks arrive, and I often move to the crappier table if I like the action there better.

Sometimes I run one NL table and one dealer's choice, but it's known ahead of time that's what the table will be. If you have some people wanting to start a different game on the second table, it's no longer a table balance issue, and those who want the original game can join you at the main table.