Moving tables

Brian_N · 13-11-2009 7:25pm #1

Not sure if there is a rule for this or not. In a tournament when balancing tables the next big blind is in general moved. Does this mean then that the player has to sit in the closest seat possible that the big blind is coming to? For example at the new table if the button is on seat 1, and seats 4 and 9 are empty, does the player then have to sit at seat 4?

kakak1 · 13-11-2009 7:29pm

Brian_N wrote: »

Not sure if there is a rule for this or not. In a tournament when balancing tables the next big blind is in general moved. Does this mean then that the player has to sit in the closest seat possible that the big blind is coming to? For example at the new table if the button is on seat 1, and seats 4 and 9 are empty, does the player then have to sit at seat 4?

he should have to sit in the worst possible position, in this case seat 4, but this is not always enforced.

tricky D · 13-11-2009 7:41pm

There's 2 schools of thought on this, both have their merits and there's no hard 'n' fast rule:

1. Put them in the worst seat as they were soon going to be the blind anway and ignore the fact that they have to get used to a new set of players.

or

2. As they've been moved, there is now a significant disadvantage as they are now at an unfamiliar table. So move them furthest from the big blind to offset this disadvantage.

Neither is 'wrong' per se, but I go with Luke's version which is the second one.

corkie123 · 13-11-2009 7:47pm

when i first started to play holdem it was the farthest seat away from bb now a days they put u nearest to bb which i disagree with myself . going to a new table i think u should get a advantage and be placed farthest away from bb

Anthony O Brien · 13-11-2009 8:08pm

I always put moving players behind the button, I dont think its fair for a player who is unfamiliar with the players at the new table to go through the blinds straight away, they should be given a chance to become familiar with the other players

5starpool · 14-11-2009 12:52am

As long as it is consistent within venues/tournies then either rule is fine imo.

connie147 · 14-11-2009 2:10am

We rule at all our tourneys to place the moving players as close to behind the button as possible, for the obvious reasons given above. It is a disadvantage to a player when he is moved table, and it is common sense (imho) to give that player the simple advantage of taking the seat nearest the button on the table he is being moved to.

I have yet to hear a compelling arguement as to why he should be moved to the seat nearest the BB.

Connie

speculationgame · 18-12-2009 2:34pm

No argument for waiting for button to pass before they are dealt in?

pkr_ennis · 18-12-2009 3:29pm

connie147 wrote: »

We rule at all our tourneys to place the moving players as close to behind the button as possible, for the obvious reasons given above. It is a disadvantage to a player when he is moved table, and it is common sense (imho) to give that player the simple advantage of taking the seat nearest the button on the table he is being moved to.

I have yet to hear a compelling arguement as to why he should be moved to the seat nearest the BB.

Connie

Why should that player have an advantage over the rest of the field? If he has 1 bb left, then he's getting more hands to hit a good hand to get his remaining chips in with.
It is a disadvantage to move tables, but this is the nature of tournament poker. That's what you sign up for at the start so it shouldn't be an issue here.

bp_me · 18-12-2009 5:12pm

speculationgame wrote: »

No argument for waiting for button to pass before they are dealt in?

Only if they are between the button and the blinds.

If they are seated in the BB then they pay the BB.

Paying the SB tends to be subject to house rules. Some places will have you pay it, some will not (i.e. wait until the button passes). Ideally you would not have players sitting into a vacant SB in a situation where the player to be SB has just been knocked out in the previous hand.

Four of a kind · 24-01-2010 5:51pm

I move the next BB player to the seat behind the button. Never had any problems with this, but rules do change from place to place.

Welruc · 25-01-2010 9:17am

Why move the next big blind? Why not move the person behind the button and put them in behind the button on the next table?

span · 25-01-2010 10:18am

If you move the person behind the button to a new table and the only available seat is UTG then the are being penalised by having to post blinds on the new table having only posted on the previous one.

If you move the next big blind their position on the new table is only going to improve or remain the same.

I'm of the opinion that the player should be moved into the worst position on the new table. The disadvantage of being moved is far outweighed by the advantage the player gains if they are moved into the best position available. Especially later in a tournament when the blinds may be a large percentage of their stack.

Welruc · 25-01-2010 12:27pm

span wrote: »

If you move the person behind the button to a new table and the only available seat is UTG then the are being penalised by having to post blinds on the new table having only posted on the previous one.

The person coming to the teble does not have to sit in the empty seat, players can be moved around so that the new player is behind the button.
.

span · 25-01-2010 3:57pm

deuceswild wrote: »

The person coming to the teble does not have to sit in the empty seat, players can be moved around so that the new player is behind the button.
.

You can't do this you have to use only the seat(s) available

Welruc · 25-01-2010 4:09pm

span wrote: »

You can't do this you have to use only the seat(s) available

Most of the people on here seem to agree that the player should go in behind the button regardless of where the empty seat is, players just shuffle around to leave the empty seat there. What im saying is instead of moving the next bb just move the closest player to the button

span · 26-01-2010 1:23pm

deuceswild wrote: »

Most of the people on here seem to agree that the player should go in behind the button regardless of where the empty seat is, players just shuffle around to leave the empty seat there. What im saying is instead of moving the next bb just move the closest player to the button

Anyone here saying the player should go behind the button is saying "as close to behind the button as possible" ie. the seat available which is closest to the button. They are not saying to shuffle players to create a seat.

connie147 · 17-02-2010 3:50am

pkr_ennis wrote: »

Why should that player have an advantage over the rest of the field? If he has 1 bb left, then he's getting more hands to hit a good hand to get his remaining chips in with.
It is a disadvantage to move tables, but this is the nature of tournament poker. That's what you sign up for at the start so it shouldn't be an issue here.

Why should that player have an advantage over the rest of the field?
I say, why should that player have a disadvantage over the rest of the field?
If youve worked hard at a table building yourself an image, picking up reads, etc, etc, theres no worse feeling than being told your the player to be moved from the table. (it never feels so bad when they are breaking a table because all players on the table are being moved). So its common sense to me that when you move that player, you give him the best position on his new table. Now if theres only 1 seat available at the new table, then its a simple task, but if theres 2 seats available, I believe the disadvantaged player should get the better of the 2 seats. And people can sign up for that at the start as well!:)

No arguements here. I like your writing style, and you make good points. I guess its just 2 different ways of looking at it.

Connie

Moving tables

Comments