Why a must move game? What is the concept?

[binki]

I played in only my second must move game and I really don't understand the concept. The game was 8/16 at The Bike on Saturday and we had 2 tables and a board and they started a 3rd table and still had the must move going.

What is the concept behind this? Are there any guidelines like the number of tables running to stop the moving?

I understand the general principal to keep a full table but where there is a board why move player when new ones are there to take seat?

[psandman]

sure the concept is something like this (but many places ruin the execution)

You have a game or games with a board. This is good. As a player leaves the game you go to the board and fill the seat and you keep your game or games filled and the players happy.

But now you have board big enough to start another game, but that leaves you without a board to fill openings in the existing games as they come along.

So you open a new game (because the people o n the list want to play and there are enough of them to start a game).

You exhaust your board and start a new game. Lets say it is 8 handed. Now a player leaves one of the original games, it is now nine handed. Another player comes along . . where do you put him? the eight handed game. Now another player comes along and you give him his choice between the two nine handed games. he choses the newer game. Now the older game has three buddies who all get up at the same time. now you have a six handed game and your players start screaming . . . we've been playing all day and we end up in the short game while the newcomers all get a full game . . . why did you open that game and destroy the board.

A must move system allows you to open a game and destroy your board but still protects the games that have already been going.

Unfortunately some rooms use Must moves when they aren't needed anymore, once you have an establishedboard to fill in seats in the existing games there is no real reason to be continuing the must move.

[Chipr777]

Many casinos after a 3rd or 4th game goes they go to the crazy daisy chain of must moves. Must moves are there to prtoect the main games from going short. I like to open a must move and when the 3rd game stays for 1 hour or more make 2 games the main game and muct move into 2 or 3 main games.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
Many casinos after a 3rd or 4th game goes they go to the crazy daisy chain of must moves. Must moves are there to prtoect the main games from going short. I like to open a must move and when the 3rd game stays for 1 hour or more make 2 games the main game and muct move into 2 or 3 main games.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never understood the concept of "main game". Why should one table be granted preferred status over another table if they ae both filled? Every player sitting down at the same limits should be treated equally, as long as the tables are capacity. In rooms with one game per stake there is a need for must move tables but I've seen MM at the bike in the $5/$5 ($300-$500NL) and it kills the games as players bust out quicky and others are shuffled into a new table machine gun style.

[bav]

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.

[binki]

Ok, it makes sense to give those there the longest the best shot at continued playing. I was just confused as this was a Saturday afternoon and they went from 2 games to 3 and started another board.

I guess on the flip side, those playing the longest are the most likely to leave. No?

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.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess on the flip side, those playing the longest are the most likely to leave. No?

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 ]
Actually, I'd wager the expected further stay of the average player at a table who has been there 30 minutes is less than the expected stay of a player who's been there 4 hours. Many NL players become entrenched, particularly if there's a smallish cap on the buyins, and what you find at the tail end of a daisy-chain NL2/5 must move is 10 players with $2000 in chips who've all been playing for 12 hours and fully intend to be there another 12.

And yeah, inability to change tables is but one of the disadvantages of must moves.

[steamboatin]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what happened to me at the Wynn. I played short handed for hours and all the sudden, I had to draw for a seat and people that just walked in kept their seat. I got moved around and then basically got moved out.

You may not consider this to be a problem but two years later, I have no plans to ever playing at the Wynn again.

[psandman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly what happened to me at the Wynn. I played short handed for hours and all the sudden, I had to draw for a seat and people that just walked in kept their seat. I got moved around and then basically got moved out.

You may not consider this to be a problem but two years later, I have no plans to ever playing at the Wynn again.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its especially a problem since many rooms are so desperate to have games that they will start short games rather than maintain a list. And NL games fuel this problem more because at any moment you can have multiple players bust out of an otherwise healthy game.

[bav]

I was told that one of the criteria by which floor people in some rooms are evaluated includes how many new games they start. Which can lead to idiocy like starting games at 5pm or 2am with 4 people after the room net flow has turned outbound. I don't mind a floor recognizing that people are coming in in greater numbers than going out and starting very short-handed games--that's good flooring--but when they do it just for the sake of starting a game and thus end up disrupting existing games it annoys me. But must-moves annoy me more.