Tourney 12 man tournament 2 tables? (1 Viewer)

[8xero8]

Hi so I’ve been mainly playing cash and STT with my friends around 6-8 players. but we are slowly getting more people interested in playing. So I thought maybe I could try to host a tournament with 12 people. We have a small apartment so this would most likely be the max we can have. Maybe 14 if we really cramp everyone in.

My question is if I were to do two tables of 6 for a tournament, would there be any issues? I know the blinds would come around quicker. And I assume I would need to merge the tables once there is like 8 players left?

And probably targeting around 4-5 hours of playing time

 

[dpeks13]

Yup that’s what we would do. Combine at 10/9 depending on the table.

 

[8xero8]

Our tables are small so 8 would be the maximum a table can support. Would that be a problem? Maybe I can push the two tables side by side for a super large table haha

 

[MrBoosh]

8 would be just fine for the final table.

 

[Kentucky]

I think most folks would prefer if you start with two tables of 6. Loose two people (and balance if necessary) for two tables of 5. Then loose one more and combine for a final table of 9.

The only issue with combining at 8 is what you are doing before- one table of 5 and one of 4 which is pretty unequal.

It’s not so bad that you need to move to a new apartment - but that would be the argument against a final table of 8.

 

[8xero8]

Ahh good point. our tables are kind of small so that 9th person might not be able to fit. But it would be pretty uneven waiting for us to go down to 8. I’ll have to mess around with our spacing. Thanks for the feedback

 

[BGinGA]

Just combine at 7.

 

[Jawnie]

Id squeeze and merge at 9 players, 4 players and 5 players is a pretty diff game and prob gotta watch chip counts on each table too, keepin em even

 

[Mr Winberg]

Our tables are small so 8 would be the maximum a table can support. Would that be a problem?

I could easily combine at 10 or 9, but I choose to combine at 8 for several reasons. So no, it won't be a problem, it will in my opinion be better.

And if 8 would be tight I would prefer to:

Just combine at 7.

 

[SlowPokeTony]

Keep it balanced at 5-5 and 4-4 then combine and redraw for 7.

 

[8xero8]

Oh thanks for the suggestions

 

[merkong]

I think most folks would prefer if you start with two tables of 6. Loose two people (and balance if necessary) for two tables of 5. Then loose one more and combine for a final table of 9.

The only issue with combining at 8 is what you are doing before- one table of 5 and one of 4 which is pretty unequal.

It’s not so bad that you need to move to a new apartment - but that would be the argument against a final table of 8.

This.

 

[Mr Winberg]

I missed these:

The only issue with combining at 8 is what you are doing before- one table of 5 and one of 4 which is pretty unequal.

But it would be pretty uneven waiting for us to go down to 8.

I see no issue whatsoever of having 4 vs 5 players on the two last tables before combining. Why would that be a problem? And if it's a problem, why isn't 5 vs 6 players a problem at eleven left? Or 6 vs 7 at 13 left? Etc.

For example, the WSOP main event combines the to the final table at 10 left, meaning there where 5 vs 6 players before that. (They officially call the final 9 the final table, but they combine at 10)

You are always going to have tables with different number of players during various times through the tournament. The only rule is that they can't differ by more than one, e.g. 5 vs 7.

 

[Kentucky]

Why would that be a problem? And if it's a problem, why isn't 5 vs 6 players a problem at eleven left? Or 6 vs 7 at 13 left? Etc

It’s a matter of statistics and YMM obviously V.

On a 5/4 split, with one table at 5 and one at 4, you will see 25% more hands for your orbit cost of 1.5BB (2.5 with a BBA) on the 5 man table and you are paying the blinds in 50% of the hands on the 4 man.

On a 6/5 split it’s 20%
On a 7/6 it’s 16.5%

The smaller the number of people the bigger the difference between the two tables and the bigger the change in difference from the previous state. (It gets exponentially more of a disparity).

In the limit, how would it be to have a final table combine at heads up, with a player on the first table not playing any hands waiting for the two on the other table to get down to one?

This is all true if you are a nit like me trying to limp fold to the final table. The LAGs among us may prefer more opportunities to attack the blinds

 

[philhut]

If 12 players show up let them play. Two tables of 6 players start the game. Combine tables when you reach 9 players (<10 players). If one table gets to 4 players while the other is still as 6, move the player whom is next to be big blind and they move into the same spot at the other table taking the big blind spot on the next hand. On a occasion this may mean players need to move over a seat depending on physical table seat spacing.

 

[Mr Winberg]

It’s a matter of statistics and YMM obviously V.

On a 5/4 split, with one table at 5 and one at 4, you will see 25% more hands for your orbit cost of 1.5BB (2.5 with a BBA) on the 5 man table and you are paying the blinds in 50% of the hands on the 4 man.

On a 6/5 split it’s 20%
On a 7/6 it’s 16.5%

The smaller the number of people the bigger the difference between the two tables and the bigger the change in difference from the previous state. (It gets exponentially more of a disparity).

In the limit, how would it be to have a final table combine at heads up, with a player on the first table not playing any hands waiting for the two on the other table to get down to one?

This is all true if you are a nit like me trying to limp fold to the final table. The LAGs among us may prefer more opportunities to attack the blinds

So your point was that at 4 vs 5 the percentage difference has passed the point of tolerance? I thought you meant that having different number of players on each table before combining was somehow unpreferable.

I've combined at 8 for years, 4 vs 5 hasn't been an issue yet. I guess it could potentially be if there were 8 ITM.

 

[Poker Zombie]

I also combined at 8 for years before I built a 10-seat table. During COVID, we limited seating to 5 per table, and later 6 per table. It did not deter attendance. You do what you have to do.

Yes, playing 4 and 5 is rough. 3 and 4 is worse. However, encountering the blinds more frequently only hurts players clinging onto their short stacks. Poker is a zero-sum game. Somebody has to win the blinds. More hands per hour allows more skill vs blind luck, so it could be argued that the short-handed table has the advantage, as their skilled players are more likely to make the final table.

Don't get me wrong, the table of 4 will mumble about the faster blinds, but when seating is random you just roll with the punch.