Must move rule- game killer or savior?

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The disadvantage is that you have to put some thought as to how to handle the complaints of nits who can't understand why protection of their first starting game shouldn't last forever and has the same level of protection as a US Treasury Bond.


[/ QUOTE ]

LOL.

These same nits don't complain when it's the other way around and they're in the 'newer' game that keeps going, do they? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

b

[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.

[afish]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have never seen a main game turned into a must move game. I have, however, seen the first main game break before the second game breaks. I think the posts in this thread explain why the alleged benefits of a must move game are outweighed by the costs. Would you rather be playing with the casual player who blows through a grand in two hours, or a bunch of TAGs who manage to last last long enough to get a seat in the main game?

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
I have never seen a main game turned into a must move game. I have, however, seen the first main game break before the second game breaks.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's happened to me and the reason is the next shift came on and there were two main games going without one designated the original. So it's okay with you if you were in the original game and now you're out of the only game left, which was your must move game?

[ QUOTE ]
Would you rather be playing with the casual player who blows through a grand in two hours, or a bunch of TAGs who manage to last last long enough to get a seat in the main game?

[/ QUOTE ]

With must move games, the issue isn't who you'd rather be playing with, it's who's entitled to sit where. There has to be some form of order somewhere.

What I see guys do to take advantage of the causal player like that is leave the main game, stay out a while, and then get back on the list. You pay the price of sitting out a while but it's fair and legit.

[TomCollins]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[Howard Beale]

[ QUOTE ]


With must move games, the issue isn't who you'd rather be playing with, it's who's entitled to sit where.

[/ QUOTE ]


What does "entitled to sit where" mean? A must-move system tells a player where to sit. Also, I wouldn't so casually dismiss game selection considerations.

[ QUOTE ]
What I see guys do to take advantage of the causal player like that is leave the main game, stay out a while, and then get back on the list. You pay the price of sitting out a while but it's fair and legit.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly what I was planning to do next time I'm confronted with the same situation since I feel "entitled" to play under the conditions that I select.

I think you should reconsider what is "fair and legit". Do you mean that players who show up first should be entitled to be in a game longer than someone who shows up an hour later? I don't get it. When I go to play I'm not guaranteed a game. At 3am the game may break up even though I want to continue playing. My point is that the regulars that lobby management to have must-move games are shortsightedly trying to impose some sort of order for order's sake alone, just so that they won't feel bad that the game "they helped" the casino start (I really lol when I hear some players say that) breaks and the other game continue without thinking of the consequences.

[SA125]

[ QUOTE ]
What does "entitled to sit where" mean? A must-move system tells a player where to sit. Also, I wouldn't so casually dismiss game selection considerations.

[/ QUOTE ]

You answered your own question and is the same point I was making. Yet you somehow suggest I was saying something else. I wasn't dismissing game selection at all. I was sticking to the point of the thread - must move games.

[ QUOTE ]
That's exactly what I was planning to do next time I'm confronted with the same situation since I feel "entitled" to play under the conditions that I select

[/ QUOTE ]

Considering the point I was making is simply having the main game stay the main game, that's just a really dumb response and taking what I said totally out of context. I seriously doubt your reading comprehension skills are so poor that you can't see that.

What's ironic is that I have a bad habit of over explaining things and yet I still get responses that have nothing to do with, or are completely out of context from, the point I was making. Read my original post Howard and then look at what you wrote. You're off base.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you mean that players who show up first should be entitled to be in a game longer than someone who shows up an hour later? I don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Had I read further into your post, I would have saved all the other stuff. I'm guessing you don't play a lot of live poker.

[Howard Beale]

I took this quote

[ QUOTE ]
It's happened to me and the reason is the next shift came on and there were two main games going without one designated the original

[/ QUOTE ]

from your post that I replied to as meaning that you supported having a main game. Now I suppose that I took your meaning wrong but it confused me. How can there be 2 main games?? I figured that by definition there can't be two main games and that was your complaint somehow. Anyway, I didn't mean to insult you, I was trying to make my point as to why I think that must-move games aren't the way to go especially in a place like LV where many players aren't going to play for very long.

I play plenty of live poker. That's why I don't like must-move games. I can be in a nice 7 handed game, just like the main game and have 2 players called over to fill the main game and then the one I'm in breaks. What good does that do for anybody?

[SA125]

No problem. As you know, there's only 1 must move at a time. So when there's 3 tables and only 1 is must move, the other 2 are considered by the floor to be main games.

It's only happened a few times where the original game is lost so it's no big deal. I just mentioned it because it's just kind of like a friendly fire causalty of the system. Like I said, no problem. GL.