Table change policy, leaving tables short..

[Bazinga]

An observation on a policy.

An example is there are two games of the same limit, one is 8 handed the other is full, 9 handed.
IF a player from the 9 handed game wishes to table change to the 8 handed game they are allowed to do so, leaving the full game short.

This is not good policy as for instance, last night, in a 2/3 game one of our players was allowed to table change making another game full, leaving us short, within a hand or two one of our players felted and left, leaving us NOW 7 handed.

The policy should be that if a player is allowed to table change only when there is a backup player to fill the seat they are leaving.

They should never intentionally make a game short in allowing a table change.  They may be trying to accommodate the player who wants the change but what they are not seeing is they are being extremely unaccommodating to the other 7+ players at the game that they were moved from.

[that_pope]

Your first two suggestions were decent, but this is lol bad.

I will never, in my life, consider an 8 handed game short.  I understand the nits who start to get sweaty when the game gets to 5 handed because they will get ran over, but 8 handed?  Really? 

Once I was playing a 3 handed 8/16 game while another game was going 8 handed.  They kept asking us to quit our game and make a 10 handed game where one of the 3 of us would have to wait for a seat to open.  I despise 10 handed games with all my heart.  The 3 of us were having a good time, because you can play a whole lot more hands at a 3 handed game than an 8 handed game.  Sure enough, an hour or so later, a few of the people at the 8 handed game left and they broke their game and joined ours.  Great Success!

[Bazinga]

"lol bad"  ?
I saw the EXACT same scenario take place again last night.
A table change made us 8 handed and another game 9 handed, two hands later, another of our player felts, leaving us 7 handed, players start looking around, one super nit walks, and the dominoes start to fall so to speak, within 10 minutes our game is gone.

You are missing the point completely, it not that 8 hand is a "short" game its that the practice currently in use is not conducive to protecting full(er) games.

The house is actively endorsing a policy that removes a player from one game, without a replacement, to increase the number of players at a different game to a number more than the first game is left with.
The policy leaves games "shorter" than they were, not short, i should have clarified.

While you do not consider 8 handed short( i agree, but we are fewer and more far between) what i observe is that the majority of players get sweaty palms and start looking around the second a seat is open for more than a minute or so.

The policy as it is seems to suggest that if there is a 6 handed game and a 5 handed game they would let the 6th player from one game switch to the 5 handed game, is that a fair move if you are the 6 handed( now 5 handed) game? i would HOPE they have enough sense NOT to.
What if YOU are in the 6 handed game and they allow a table change to another game, do you say nothing?

Its bad for the games in general, why not just tell players, : "you are on the list, ill move you as soon as i can replace you"
IF they had used this as a policy, in the cases i have seen , both games would likely remain running.

The current policy can produce ( and does) one full game and a "short(er)" game that will break down completely very quickly.

[NoSup4U]

I don't get it. If one table has 9 players and the other has 8, or one table has 8 and the other has 9, it makes no difference to the house or to you on average. If you were at the 8 handed table and a 9th person came over, you'd be happy.

Allowing players to move when they want is a net gain. In this situation, 17 players are involved. Not allowing player 9 at a table to move makes the other 8 players at that table happy, makes player 9 sad, and the 8 players at the other table sad. (so 8 happy, 9 sad) Allowing him to move makes the other 8 players at his original table sad, him happy and the other table's 8 players happy. (9 happy, 8 sad)

You need the same skill here that you do in poker: Learn to look at the long run and not at your short run results. In the long run, this policy is better for more people, you included. This time, you happened to be on the unlucky side. Next time, you probably won't be.

[Bazinga]

while i see you perspective on long term, what i see is this...

In the 8 handed game, those players are unaware that a player wants a table change and are likely content with getting the next player that arrives to get in a game.
The 9 handed game is full and the players are content.

"if it aint broke"

I see your point that the 8 handed game will be happy, but the game that just lost a player will be dis-satisfied on higher level, its doesn't balance out.

The next time this happens, go over to the game that just got a player removed and tell them..."In the long run, this policy is better for more people, you included. This time, you happened to be on the unlucky side"  and see how that goes over.  I understand what you are saying, but the reality is, MOST players dont think in those terms, they are concerned with what is happening at the moment.

I have seen more games break because of this policy that would have stayed in action if they would have just waited to move a player until they could fill the seat.

[Stee1rz_Fanz]

I believe I was at the same table when that happened the other night and I did see many people upset about the table change with no board brining the table to not "full" but I tried to explain the idea that if the table change brought the table to less than 6 I could see a problem but moving from 9 to 8 to me was no big deal...

My 2 cents..

[Bazinga]

I have to comment again.  I was witness\victim again last night to this poor policy.
The game was full, the board girls moved one of our players who had requested a table change to another game.  Our seat didn't get filled so the dealer pressed the seat open button.  We were informed by the board that there was"no list" so we were left short. Within a couple hands several other players started to fidget, one got up and the game disintegrated from there.
The board people need to be MORE aware of the state of a game before they start moving players, always be sure there is a player to replace the player that is moving, its that simple, call  and get a confirmation from the replacement first.
If there is no replacement, DO NOT MOVE ANYONE.
IF they had utilized that type of policy it is very likely that both game would have remained running.

[CrazyLond]

One thing I notice in the 8-16 game is that if I am playing, say, 5 handed, and the other table is 7 handed, that other table will usually fill up before anyone sits at mine.  Players are just bypassing the sign in process and going to sit at the fuller game.  I don't complain since I am generally happy if the other players at my table are willing to play shorthanded.

[that_pope]

You can force them to your game if you wish.  But if you want your game to stay short, make sure none of the other players notice it as well.

[CrazyLond]

Many 8-16 players are not even aware of most of what is going on at our table, let alone the one next to us