Live Rookie ?

[Befolder]

I'm an avid player and have started to increase my live play frequency, but I don't have a firm grasp on what a "must move" game is.

I read this all the time in this forum, but havne't been able to put together answers for the following:

1. What is the logic behind such a table or tables?
2. Why is there a main game at all? It seems that any full table is just as main as any other. My assumption is obviously incorrect. Is the main game full or regulars usually or something?
3. What is this daisy chain move that I've just now read about.

Someone please do a brother a solid and educate me about this.

I've also heard descriptions of having to go a "must move" game.

Thanks.

[donking]

There is a main table, a 2nd table which is must move to the main table, and maybe a 3rd table which is must move to the 2nd table, etc. When a new player joins the chain, they take a seat at the last table or 3rd table in this example. If someone leaves the main game, the player at the top of the list (who has been at the 2nd table longest) is moved to the main table. Then the person who has been at the 3rd table the longest must move to the 2nd table.

People can't move from one table to the other as it is controlled by the "who has been at the table longest" list. If someone doesn't like the main game, usually bad players go bust before making it to the main game, they have to leave the main game (change limits or cash-out and railbird) then get back on the list and wait for a seat at the beginning of the chain at the 3rd table.

[MicroBob]

The logic is that most people want to play in full games. So this helps them accomplish that.

Anytime someone leaves the main-game they bring in a new player.


Many people aren't very big fans of must-move situations for various reasons. There is a logic behind it though.

I was pretty confused by the concept when I first started playing live as well.


I played Horseshoe-Tunica sometimes in their 2/5 NL must-move game.

If they get down to 15 or 14 players then that means they will have 1 table of 10 players and another table of 5 players.
I think this pretty much sucks and believe the games could last longer if they had 1 table of 8 players and 1 table of 7 players.

but I've never managed a poker-room before and don't know if it really would be the better way to go.

[RR]

[ QUOTE ]
If they get down to 15 or 14 players then that means they will have 1 table of 10 players and another table of 5 players.
I think this pretty much sucks and believe the games could last longer if they had 1 table of 8 players and 1 table of 7 players.

[/ QUOTE ]

In general I think having a must move is better for the players; if it is implemented properly. I think most must move policies are horrible. I see no reason for a chained must move to ever exist. If you games are strong enough that you want to chain the must moves the games are strong enough to take the must move off.