Cash Game Combining Tables in Home Cash Games (2 Viewers)

How would you combine cash tables in a home game?

  • Tables are same poker variant: Option #1

    Votes: 14 93.3%
  • Tables are same poker variant: Option #2

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • Tables are same poker variant: Option #3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Tables are same poker variant: Option #4

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Tables aren't same poker variant: Option #1

    Votes: 2 13.3%
  • Tables aren't same poker variant: Option #2

    Votes: 9 60.0%
  • Tables aren't same poker variant: Option #3

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Tables aren't same poker variant: Option #4

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    15

trigs

Flush
Joined
Sep 29, 2017
Messages
1,374
Reaction score
1,666
Location
Canada
I tried searching the forum for this as I believe I've read something about it before but I couldn't find a thread.

Let's say you are hosting and had two cash game tables going at the same time. As the night wore on, and people started to leave to the point that you were going to combine the remaining players onto one table, how would you deal with the players' stacks coming from the outer table? I'm interested in hearing the reasons why for your choice.

I'm curious because I could see some issues with how this is handled. What if one table was much shorter than the other for a long while (and therefore one had way more money on the table than the other, for example)? What if the tables were different poker variants? What if one table had a bunch of rebuying maniacs and the other table was full of nits (again possibly making the money on one table way more than the other)? Do these scenarios change your answer? What's the fairest way to deal with this type of situation?

The possible options I can think of are:
  • Option #1: New players joining table bring the same stack from the previous table.
  • Option #2: New players must cash in their chips from previous table and buy-in again at new table.
  • Option #3: Everyone must cash in chips and buy-in again at new table.
  • Option #4: Some other option (please explain in comments)
I figured that if the tables were different poker variants, it would probably change one's answer, so I tried to make the poll reflect that.
 
Some of these options involve players “going south” with money if they are moving tables. If you are going to offer that option to one table you should offer it to both. I wouldn’t offer it to either
 
Some of these options involve players “going south” with money if they are moving tables. If you are going to offer that option to one table you should offer it to both. I wouldn’t offer it to either
So what would you do then? New players keep the same stack? Even if they are coming from a table with a different game?
 
For me it's this:

Same game, same stakes - players keep stacks as the tables combine, option to add on up to half the big stack.

Different games or stakes - players have the option to buyin for minimum upto 1/2 the big stack.

My cash games usually have a table of circus and a table of holdem. When the holdem table breaks, anyone buying in for circus I treat as a new buy-in.
 
So what would you do then? New players keep the same stack? Even if they are coming from a table with a different game?
If you manage your games to the point where it comes to wonky situations like this then you have to live with wonky situations.
This happens at meetups a lot. Regularly. Constantly as people want to play with other people and play with other chip sets. It’s usually managed like Craig says above.
 
If you manage your games to the point where it comes to wonky situations like this then you have to live with wonky situations.
This happens at meetups a lot. Regularly. Constantly as people want to play with other people and play with other chip sets. It’s usually managed like Craig says above.
Lol, why is it "wonky" to have two tables playing different games?
 
For me it's this:

Same game, same stakes - players keep stacks as the tables combine, option to add on up to half the big stack.

Different games or stakes - players have the option to buyin for minimum upto 1/2 the big stack.

My cash games usually have a table of circus and a table of holdem. When the holdem table breaks, anyone buying in for circus I treat as a new buy-in.
Have you ever had anyone complain? For example, in the first situation, a player coming from the other table has a huge stack - does anyone see this as unfair? I guess players can do an add-on to up to 50% of this new guy's stack at least.

What about the second situation? Has anyone complained that they've been playing all night and finally built up a big stack and it's not their fault that the other table broke. Now they have to start again with a small stack on a different table?

Just curious.
 
Have you ever had anyone complain? For example, in the first situation, a player coming from the other table has a huge stack - does anyone see this as unfair? I guess players can do an add-on to up to 50% of this new guy's stack at least.

What about the second situation? Has anyone complained that they've been playing all night and finally built up a big stack and it's not their fault that the other table broke. Now they have to start again with a small stack on a different table?

Just curious.
No, no complaints. Holdem and Circus are two different games, so whatever stack you built there doesn't get to come to circus and vice versa. I also keep separate drops for the bad beat per table (Circus/NLHE)

If the same game is running, I feel most of my group would rather have the opportunity to win more and would automatically top off to 1/2 of whatever big stack was moving to their table.
 
Some of these options involve players “going south” with money if they are moving tables. If you are going to offer that option to one table you should offer it to both. I wouldn’t offer it to either
I am also curious about another point here. Is this technically "going south" if you are changing tables? Is that true in casinos? I don't actually know.
 
It’s not. It’s wonky to try and combine them in some weird way
I still don't get why it's "wonky" for a player to go from one table to the other (or multiple players doing that if a table breaks). This happens all the time in casinos.
 
I still don't get why it's "wonky" for a player to go from one table to the other (or multiple players doing that if a table breaks). This happens all the time in casinos.
Ok why the thread then? What are you having a hard time with if this happens allThe time?
 
For me it's this:

Same game, same stakes - players keep stacks as the tables combine, option to add on up to half the big stack.

Different games or stakes - players have the option to buyin for minimum upto 1/2 the big stack.

My cash games usually have a table of circus and a table of holdem. When the holdem table breaks, anyone buying in for circus I treat as a new buy-in.
If the hold’em table had a big stack player that wanted to bring the full amount (more than 1/2 of the circus table big stack) would you allow it?

I think I would just have both tables be the same stakes/games for my regular game to not have to deal with these issues. Especially if it likely the second table won’t last long and or the players are wanting to get onto the main game.
 
Because I want to know how people handle it in home games. They are different than casino games imho.
Then why do you keep bringing up what the casinos do? I mean I’m up for a good argument, but you can’t keep changing the parameters
 
Then why do you keep bringing up what the casinos do? I mean I’m up for a good argument, but you can’t keep changing the parameters
The only reason I mentioned casino games is because you said it's "wonky" to have people changing from one table to another, and I was using that as an example of how it happens all the time in casinos. I am curious as to how people handle this change in home games.

I think I'm done conversing with you on this as I don't think you get what we are disagreeing about.
 
If same game/stakes they carry existing stack forward

Different game/stakes they csn buyin up to that tables max
In scenario 2, they "can" or they "have to"? Can they carry their stack forward to a different game table? Or when changing tables to a different game, is it considered "going south" if they cash in and then buy-in again at the new table like @ekricket said above?
 
The only reason I mentioned casino games is because you said it's "wonky" to have people changing from one table to another, and I was using that as an example of how it happens all the time in casinos. I am curious as to how people handle this change in home games.

I think I'm done conversing with you on this as I don't think you get what we are disagreeing about.
No it’s wonky to have two different games and stakes going and then try to force combine the tables at some point. You seem to think that this is normal now and “happens all the time”.
I agree I don’t know what we are disagreeing on. You sometimes seem to think that this is an abnormal situation, and I agree, it’s an abnormal situation. I even call it an abnormal situation, then you say “no it’s normal, happens all the time.”
 
In scenario 2, they "can" or they "have to"? Can they carry their stack forward to a different game table? Or when changing tables to a different game, is it considered "going south" if they cash in and then buy-in again at the new table like @ekricket said above?

New game variant and/or new stakes they can buyin up to table max but don't have to

I wouldn't consider it going south

If they switch back into the game they moved from within an hours time they have to come with the amount they left with
 
No it’s wonky to have two different games and stakes going and then try to force combine the tables at some point. You seem to think that this is normal now and “happens all the time”.
I agree I don’t know what we are disagreeing on. You sometimes seem to think that this is an abnormal situation, and I agree, it’s an abnormal situation. I even call it an abnormal situation, then you say “no it’s normal, happens all the time.”
No one is "forcing tables to combine". Players who are at the table that closed just still want to play and therefore are moving to the only other table available at the home game. Are you saying that if their table closes they just have to leave and stop playing? There is nothing "wonky" about this scenario dude. I'm just asking how people deal with this situation in home games. I just don't understand how you think this situation is "wonky", that's all I'm asking you. Even you say it happens at meetups all the time, so why is it wonky?

I shouldn't have even fed the troll. My bad.
 
We used to have two cash game tables all the time. One table was designated as the "main game" and the other table was designated as the "must move." Everyone knew in advance which table would be the survivor. We never had a problem since everyone knew beforehand.
 
We used to have two cash game tables all the time. One table was designated as the "main game" and the other table was designated as the "must move." Everyone knew in advance which table would be the survivor. We never had an problem since everyone knew beforehand.
I'm assuming then that even if players kept leaving the "main table", you would just take players from the "must move table". How would that be decided on who moves, and would they bring their stack too? I could see people possibly being upset if some maniac bad player just stacked them and then got moved to the other table with all "their" chips.
 
If the hold’em table had a big stack player that wanted to bring the full amount (more than 1/2 of the circus table big stack) would you allow it?

I think I would just have both tables be the same stakes/games for my regular game to not have to deal with these issues. Especially if it likely the second table won’t last long and or the players are wanting to get onto the main game.
Yes, I'd allow the holdem player to buy in for his max stack. My group has played together long enough that if a hold em player wanted to bring $1,000 + to a circus table, we'd glady allow it. In fact wrists would break trying to get more cash out of pockets.
 
Ok, handle it like normal then.
Thanks. That was the point of the thread. I wanted to know how people handle this situation. I wasn't aware there was a "normal" way. Clearly, there is more than one way to handle it though.
 
Yes, I'd allow the holdem player to buy in for his max stack. My group has played together long enough that if a hold em player wanted to bring $1,000 + to a circus table, we'd glady allow it. In fact wrists would break trying to get more cash out of pockets.
How do you choose who moves? Random draw? Next BB?
 
I'm assuming then that even if players kept leaving the "main table", you would just take players from the "must move table". How would that be decided on who moves, and would they bring their stack too? I could see people possibly being upset if some maniac bad player just stacked them and then got moved to the other table with all "their" chips.
I’m rusty on this but I think it’s usually a first in first out type thing in a card room if no one volunteers to move from the must move table. In a home game I might grab a player based on position of the empty seat in the main game assuming everyone sat down at the same time.

I think you might be overthinking this though. If it’s a friendly-ish game, just merge the tables. Who cares, path of least resistance/effort. If somebody has an issue you can address it then.

If your home game is more serious, if the rotation or stakes are different and the table breaks, well it breaks and those players can buy in up to the max in the existing game.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom