Must Move
This isn't really about no limit poker, but I think some discussion of must move tables will probably appear in the book this stuff will eventually become, so I'm going to make some comments about must move tables.
I was playing in a Monday afternoon 2/5 no limit game at Choctaw Casino in Durant Oklahoma, just North of Dallas.
Monday afternoon is an important part of this story because that generally means the table is generally populated by a bunch of retired tight ass regulars.
I don't expect this to be a great game, but I'm on the road between Corpus Christ and Cushing and decided to stay a night in Durant and check out the room. So, I'm going to play for a couple of hours at least.
There was a conversation about an event on Sunday where a second game had been started without designating it as must move, and after a little while the oldest game broke up. There were not enough seats on the second table and the broken game had to draw for who got the seats and who got on a list. A lot of whining ensued by those who lost the draw.
What's the matter with these people?
The Monday floor made the comment that it's not fair to the original game to not designate the new game as a must move. They get punished if the new game isn't must move, he said.
I made the observation that they get punished more if the new game is designated as a must move. They're going to get punished if they're in a bad game, not matter what the floor does, and making the other game must move just serves to harm the orginal game more if the original lineup isn't a lineup of a good game.
My thoughts are that making the other game a must move means that the original game never gets a random new player off the street, it only gets replacements from the ones who last the longest on the most move game, making a tough original lineup even a tougher lineup over time.
Do any of y'all have any thoughts on this?
This isn't really about no limit poker, but I think some discussion of must move tables will probably appear in the book this stuff will eventually become, so I'm going to make some comments about must move tables.
I was playing in a Monday afternoon 2/5 no limit game at Choctaw Casino in Durant Oklahoma, just North of Dallas.
Monday afternoon is an important part of this story because that generally means the table is generally populated by a bunch of retired tight ass regulars.
I don't expect this to be a great game, but I'm on the road between Corpus Christ and Cushing and decided to stay a night in Durant and check out the room. So, I'm going to play for a couple of hours at least.
There was a conversation about an event on Sunday where a second game had been started without designating it as must move, and after a little while the oldest game broke up. There were not enough seats on the second table and the broken game had to draw for who got the seats and who got on a list. A lot of whining ensued by those who lost the draw.
What's the matter with these people?
The Monday floor made the comment that it's not fair to the original game to not designate the new game as a must move. They get punished if the new game isn't must move, he said.
I made the observation that they get punished more if the new game is designated as a must move. They're going to get punished if they're in a bad game, not matter what the floor does, and making the other game must move just serves to harm the orginal game more if the original lineup isn't a lineup of a good game.
My thoughts are that making the other game a must move means that the original game never gets a random new player off the street, it only gets replacements from the ones who last the longest on the most move game, making a tough original lineup even a tougher lineup over time.
Do any of y'all have any thoughts on this?
posted by Gary Carson at 3:53 PM
3 Comments:
I suppose it depends on your definition of punnished. I think I read somewhere that people have different motivations for playing poker. Being in a game may be more important than being in a good game. Waiting therefore would be punishment.
More to your point, i suppose it depends on how quickly bad players bust out...the rate at which a table turns tough. I have no idea how B&M tables change over time.
Those that last longest would be good/average players, bad players who got lucky, and bad players with cash. I would think you would want the last two types at your table.
Maybe making the new table must move will increase your likelihood of having a good/tough player move to your table. But this could be offset by increasing the likelihood of bringing in a more profitable bad player--a bad player with more money to lose.
How does that sound?
That's a good point that to many people just being in a game at all is the objective, they don't really care whether it's a good game or not. It's those people that are being taken into consideration when a room uses most move tables.
But, those people are just being conned, I don't think must move actually makes their game last in most cases. Sometimes it does, but I don't think it does most of the time. I think most of the time the game will last whether they use must move or not, and without must move it will last but also be a better game.
I could be wrong about he game lasting anyway.
A large number of the bad players never get to the main game. They bust out or leave before it comes there turn to move. That's how the main game is harmed.
I think must move is good from the point of view of the cardroom beacuse it pleases the players most likely to whine. But I don't think any of the players actually benefit, even though some think they do.
What I do is just cash out and go home and take a nap when it's my turn to move to the main game. Come back later. I prefer no must move at all, but I'm willing to play in the feeder game. I won't play in the main game unless it has at least a couple of known losers.
Thanks for your comments. I don't really know the answer. Must move games to tend to complicate game selection in B/M rooms. And I think overall they tend to make games less exploitable.
A must move in a limit game would be different than in a no limit game. I would think that the bad players in a no limit game would bust out more often and faster. So for no limit games, I would agree with you whole heartedly.
For limit games, it might depend on the dynamics of the game that night and the limit. I think the sorting that j gibby mentions happens more often on limit tables.
Or I should say that you see more bad players that get lucky and bad players with cash sorting through the must move table on a limit table.
The worst case situation for a good player on a must move would be if the main game already has nothing but rocks on it and you move to it. Then you are waiting to see which person breaks first from impatience (how many rounds can you go with no calls to an early raiser) and gets up while coveting the next person that you know is an action player that will come from the must move.
Post a Comment
<< Home