Tourney Invites for Single Table (1 Viewer)

[Steve Birrer]

For a number of years I have been hosting a single table tournament about every three or four weeks when I am around town. For quite awhile it was a struggle to get a full table (10). Usually ended up with about 8. But over time several players have moved and new guys have come along but a now I have a new "problem."

I have a list of about 12-13 guys who consistently play or at least like to get invites. I also have several others that would like to start playing if I'd invite them. And herein lies the problem. What I have started doing the last several months is sending out text invites to the routine set of players and give seats to the first 10 that respond yes (my invite states just that). And that has worked fine except for the last two times I had to actually turn down a "regular" as I was full. And that doesn't count for the couple of others that would like to play. For instance, this morning a player asked me what time my game was tomorrow. And I had to tell her I was already full. She is clearly trying to get into the game as a regular.

So my problem is that I don't have enough to really go for two tables. I have pulled that off a couple of times but it has been too stressful on me trying to round up enough bodies. So keeping it at one table for now here's my questions:

1. Do I keep sending the invite to my regulars and when I don't get 10 then open it up to these other players?
2. Do I just send out the invite to include the couple of new players and give seats to the first 10?
3. Is there a better way (simple way) that just saying first come first serve? The problem is that most players can text right back compared to the type of work that others do and I feel like I end up having to tell somebody I am full already when they replied even later that same day. Hasn't been an issue yet but the last two times I have had to turn guys away and I don't feel good about that. And yeah I guess that's a good problem....lol

 

[ekricket]

Still run a single table but have alternates. As somebody gets knocked out they can buy in. Not ideal, but at least they have a chance to play

 

[Pesto628]

Is the second table just a concern around space? Why can’t you just do two tables evenly split if you get more than a table full?

 

[Mr Winberg]

So my problem is that I don't have enough to really go for two tables.

Enough players or enough chips?

If players, then I really think you should shoot for two tables anyway. You never know when regulars will turn into constant no-shows due to life, so keep recruiting!

Let's say only 12 show up. So start 6 handed, nothing wrong with that. The only way to eventually fill two tables is to allow people to play.

Regarding table size, the best change I've done the last decade is switching from 10 to 8 players per table. We get more hands per hour and people play more percentage of their hands, which in itself is fun but also helps increase the knockout rate which means higher average stacks meaning less shovefest during the end game.

If not enough chips, then buy MOAR chips!

My 2 cents

 

[w00zie]

Enough players or enough chips?

If players, then I really think you should shoot for two tables anyway. You never know when regulars will turn into constant no-shows due to life, so keep recruiting!

Let's say only 12 show up. So start 6 handed, nothing wrong with that. The only way to eventually fill two tables is to allow people to play.

Regarding table size, the best change I've done the last decade is switching from 10 to 8 players per table. We get more hands per hour and people play more percentage of their hands, which in itself is fun but also helps increase the knockout rate which means higher average stacks meaning less shovefest during the end game.

If not enough chips, then buy MOAR chips!

My 2 cents

Agreed, I would definitely open a second table when twelve players want to play.

 

[Han Trinh]

We use Facebook messenger. We have a private poker chat group. We Send out a notice about the game and first come first serve. Games are coordinated real time and everyone can see/chat/reply.

Nice thing is over time people use the chat channel to socialize, hang out and chat. Helps bring the players together.

 

[Eloe2000]

You don’t need to fill two tables to have two tables at your tournament. This is a no brainer to me that you just have two tables and split up however many players as evenly as possible. Whether you get 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 etc. just make it 5+6 or 6+6 or 6+7 and as soon as you get down to 10 or 9 players just consolidate. You don’t want to be discouraging eager new players.

 

[Steve Birrer]

1. I have the space and chips to run a two table.

2. Not ever going to use alternates for a single table. Don't think that concept works (at all) but especially when we have rebuys the first two hours.

3. I'll have to think about trying to do two tables as my normal go to. Not sure I have quite enough players for that yet. I do not want to start a two table with only 6 handed. If I can't have 14 or more than I'd rather play one table. However, I am going to ask my crew tomorrow what they would prefer. Maybe i'll be surprised?

 

[EnjoyLife]

I just run two tables and consolidate once we hit 9 or 10. I don't like playing with 11, but if that happens, then there will be a table with 5 players. My max is about 14, due to number of chairs and for the fact that I am in the process of finishing up my basement. Once I have the room in the basement (and a functioning bathroom), I will start having them down there and get a third table (hopefully from @T_Chan).

 

[Poker Zombie]

Host 2 tables. If the game is good, it will continue to grow.

It's a little odd when you have just 11 players. Early blinds won't eliminate anyone, so one table will feel short for a long time, but playing short for a while is better than being turned away.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I do not want to start a two table with only 6 handed.

It's actually really fun, you should try it!

If you have rebuys (eventually meaning no eliminations for two hours) and don't like shorthand play, then I understand that you don't want 12 players. One solution here is to have a freezout instead and use the second table for a cashgame once it's free. If you guys don't play cash games, the answer is simple: Start playing cash games!

The second best change I've done the last decade is stop with rebuys and instead have a cash table for all losers.

 

[Steve Birrer]

All good suggestions guys. I have tried the cash game after you bust out (no rebuys) and it went over like a lead balloon. Almost to a player they said they much prefer to be able to rebuy. This group really likes to be able to rebuy so pretty sure I'll stick with that but maybe two tables could go. A part of the problem is that I am only here half the year. So just about the time a lot of interest builds up I leave for six months. And NO I AINT staying here all year. Not happening.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Have you tried staying all year? The third best change I've made the last decade is...

 

[BGinGA]

12+ players works great -- short-handed starting tables actually promote more early action, and they provide valuable experience for when the final table starts winding down towards the money positions.

We start two eight-player tables, combining at when down to nine players -- so the starting tables are never shorter than 5 players.

 

[BGinGA]

Host 2 tables. If the game is good, it will continue to grow.

It's a little odd when you have just 11 players. Early blinds won't eliminate anyone, so one table will feel short for a long time, but playing short for a while is better than being turned away.

One way to help balance this is to run 6/5 for an hour, then move a random player and run 5/6 for the second hour. One player gets 6-handed action, and everybody else gets half 6- and half 5-handed play. Minimal disruption, and a lot more fair when at 11 players. And much better than trying to cram 11 players onto one table.

 

[Poker Zombie]

One way to help balance this is to run 6/5 for an hour, then move a random player and run 5/6 for the second hour. One player gets 6-handed action, and everybody else gets half 6- and half 5-handed play. Minimal disruption, and a lot more fair when at 11 players. And much better than trying to cram 11 players onto one table.

I like that, though rather than a random player, why not the next BB at the more populous table into he worst possible position at the smaller table?

 

[BGinGA]

I like that, though rather than a random player, why not the next BB at the more populous table into he worst possible position at the smaller table?

That would work, but I'd hate to see players trying to manipulate the draw by slowing down or speeding up play in the final minute(s) before break. Random player selection going to a randomly-selected open seat (or to the open most-similar-seat) seems better imo.

 

[Mr Winberg]

One way to help balance this is to run 6/5 for an hour, then move a random player and run 5/6 for the second hour. One player gets 6-handed action, and everybody else gets half 6- and half 5-handed play. Minimal disruption, and a lot more fair when at 11 players. And much better than trying to cram 11 players onto one table.

I like that, though rather than a random player, why not the next BB at the more populous table into he worst possible position at the smaller table?

Why not the player with the most average stack at the 6-handed table? That way, the risk of the tables having a disproportionate number of chips is lower. For example, if instead a massive chip leader is randomly selected to move, his/her old table will all be short.

 

[BGinGA]

Random player movement is part of the multi-table game. Same reason the average stack doesn't move to balance tables....

Plus, fixed your post:

if instead a massive chip leader is randomly selected to move, his/her old table will all be short equal.

 

[Poker Zombie]

All good suggestions guys. I have tried the cash game after you bust out (no rebuys) and it went over like a lead balloon. Almost to a player they said they much prefer to be able to rebuy. This group really likes to be able to rebuy so pretty sure I'll stick with that but maybe two tables could go. A part of the problem is that I am only here half the year. So just about the time a lot of interest builds up I leave for six months. And NO I AINT staying here all year. Not happening.

I have also found casual players prefer to rebuy vs getting into a cash game. More serious players prefer to get into cash, and will often pass on the rebuy to play in the cash game.

IMO, a cash game only hurts the tournament play.

 

[Poker Zombie]

That would work, but I'd hate to see players trying to manipulate the draw by slowing down or speeding up play in the final minute(s) before break. Random player selection going to a randomly-selected open seat (or to the open most-similar-seat) seems better imo.

So you would just move random into an equal position (relative to the blinds), as best as possible. Might be a bit more troublesome, but would remove the possible angle.

I think I would still stick with moving the BB for ease, simplicity, and being the standard TDA rule for moving players, but I would keep an eye out for the low sum gain of the angle-shoot.

 

[Mr Winberg]

Random player movement is part of the multi-table game. Same reason the average stack doesn't move to balance tables....

I agree, and that is the reason I myself would never implement this, i.e. moving a player after an hour with 11 players. The draw selected each player's seat, so they have to live with it. It's a part of the multi-table game.

My point is, IF I was to make a house rule to make the game more fair, why wouldn't I make it as fair as possible with "a house rule for my house rule"?

FYI, from my viewpoint the discussion is purely an academic one.

 

[BGinGA]

My point is, IF I was to make a house rule to make the game more fair, why wouldn't I make it as fair as possible with "a house rule for my house rule"?

I think the academic argument is that moving the 'average stack' isn't necessarily more fair than moving a random player (or the predesignated next-BB player). One can make compelling arguments either way.

 

[Poker Zombie]

from my viewpoint the discussion is purely an academic one.

It is, but what else do Dave and I have to argue about today?

 

[Mr Winberg]

One can make compelling arguments either way.

...which means you admit that I at least have a fraction of a point, which is more than I was hoping for!

 

[Mr Winberg]

The best thing about my approach is that if the 11th player is an hour late, he can just sit down at his "new" table!

 

[BGinGA]

...which means you admit that I at least have a fraction of a point, which is more than I was hoping for!

Well, I didn't say that your compelling points were *correct*.

 

[Frogzilla]

5 handed holdem play is so much better than 10 handed. If I had to rank the # of players, it’s as follows:

6
7
5
8
4
2
3
9
10

Play two tables and combine at 9 (play 5/5 until someone eliminated)

 

[Mr Winberg]

Well, I didn't say that your compelling points were *correct*.

Not explicitly, but I read between the lines.

 

[Steve Birrer]

5 handed holdem play is so much better than 10 handed. If I had to rank the # of players, it’s as follows:

6
7
5
8
4
2
3
9
10

Play two tables and combine at 9 (play 5/5 until someone eliminated)

Interesting take but its a bit meaningless in this context. To say that 2, 3, 4 handed is better than 10 handed is totally irrelevant when we are talking about setting up a tournament. Now I get what you are saying and you'd rather have two tables of 5 than one table of 10. If that is generally the consensus on here then I could certainly almost always do two tables. I have to think about that a bit. From a strictly running it perspective its easier for me to have one table of 10 than two tables of any number since everything is in front of me (not that two tables is hard).