Tourney MTT - Do you re-seat the entire final table? (1 Viewer)

[krafticus]

I was thinking yesterday (which doesn't happen often).
When hosting a Multi-Table tournament, and you collapse down to the final table, do you re-seat the entire table or do you just have the other table fill in?

I use Tournament Director, and the option to do both is there. I've always had it shuffle the entire table, and then have the 1 seat take the button. Wondering how others do it?

 

[CraigT78]

I redraw seats and high card for button.

 

[moose]

Redraw

 

[Irish]

I redraw seats and high card for button.

^^this

 

[Cliff]

You already do it correctly

 

[Mojo1312]

I redraw seats and high card for button.

The above for the three winters that I hosted a MTT. Players merge together in the weekly two table tourney that I play in now.

 

[DarPodo]

Full stack!

 

[BGinGA]

Redraw for the last three table combines (per RROP and TDA rules).

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Alw;ays redraw the final table. Fill in on those rare occasions when we have a three-table game and have to break the third table.

 

[Vice]

My opinion would be yes.

 

[Jonesey07]

Redraw and high card for button.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Re-draw.

 

[Wils]

I've never had to "administer" this but it seems a redraw could be very unfair.

You were the big blind in the last hand? Congratulations! You're the big blind again.

You were the button in the last hand?
Congrats etc etc

I've always felt that when the last two tables collapse into one, all the players should be in as close a position to where they were "before" the move (so if you were about to be the button, you still would be. If you were about to pay the big blind, you still would be).

Like I say I've never had to organise it so I don't know how achievable that is (or how long it would take v a simple redraw).

 

[BGinGA]

The random 'unfairness' of being the BB or Button twice in a row is outweighed by the unfairness of non-random seating -- specifically the proximity to the big/small stack, best/worst player, etc.

 

[Wils]

The random 'unfairness' of being the BB or Button twice in a row is outweighed by the unfairness of non-random seating -- specifically the proximity to the big/small stack, best/worst player, etc.

Explain that like I'm stupid. An argument of "it's not fair to sit next to the big stack" doesn't make sense to me - otherwise you could argue people should randomly re-seat every hour or so, so that one person isn't sitting next to a big stack/good player (or the opposite) for too long.

As I say, I've not had to do this, but I've been on the receiving end of "You're the big blind. Again" a couple of times and it rankled me somewhat.

 

[DoubleEagle]

You can get assigned to the BB twice in a row when combining tables whether you redraw or not.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

When I break a table in a 3+ table tourney, I randomly move players from the broken table to empty seats at the remaining tables.

Honestly, I don't think redrawing is any more or less fair than filling the empty seats at table 1 with players from table 2. There's an equal, random chance of getting screwed over (e.g. paying BB twice) in either scenario. I think we redraw for the final table mainly because it's a de facto standard.

 

[Wils]

You can get assigned to the BB twice in a row when combining tables whether you redraw or not.

How, if you're being reseated in such a way that you're placed in relation to your previous proximity to the big blind?

 

[DoubleEagle]

How, if you're being reseated in such a way that you're placed in relation to your previous proximity to the big blind?

You are never re-seated in relation to your previous location.

 

[Wils]

You are never re-seated in relation to your previous location.

That's my point.

Let me rephrase: why would you end up paying BB twice, if you were reseated in such a way that you *are* reseated in relation to your previous location?

 

[rimmerryan]

Your method is the way to do it.
Re-Draw for seats at the final table.
Seat 1 gets button.

 

[BGinGA]

When I break a table in a 3+ table tourney, I randomly move players from the broken table to empty seats at the remaining tables.

Honestly, I don't think redrawing is any more or less fair than filling the empty seats at table 1 with players from table 2. There's an equal, random chance of getting screwed over (e.g. paying BB twice) in either scenario. I think we redraw for the final table mainly because it's a de facto standard.

By definition, nothing can ever be more fair than a random draw of all participants. And it's the de facto standard (and rule) to redraw for the last 3 tables, not just the final table.

Explain that like I'm stupid. An argument of "it's not fair to sit next to the big stack" doesn't make sense to me - otherwise you could argue people should randomly re-seat every hour or so, so that one person isn't sitting next to a big stack/good player (or the opposite) for too long.

I actually experimented with this approach, in an effort to increase seating randomness and minimize the effects of "luck of the draw". Firmly convinced that multiple seating redraws over the course of an event (even single-table) is a much fairer way of running a tournament (since players cannot voluntarily get up and change locations, unlike a cash game), and is the underlying basis for the rule that requires complete redraws for the final three tables.

 

[Lash]

By definition, nothing can ever be more fair than a random draw of all participants. And it's the de facto standard (and rule) to redraw for the last 3 tables, not just the final table.



I actually experimented with this approach, in an effort to increase seating randomness and minimize the effects of "luck of the draw". Firmly convinced that multiple seating redraws over the course of an event (even single-table) is a much fairer way of running a tournament (since players cannot voluntarily get up and change locations, unlike a cash game), and is the underlying basis for the rule that requires complete redraws for the final three tables.

Ive thought about doing this as well. At our regular tourney games theres always the same two or three donks that have no problem rebuying every other hand. When these two or three get seated at the same table the stack sizes between the tables is very different and when final table comes we have a table with huge stacks mixing in with tables that might not of had any rebuys

 

[BGinGA]

Ive thought about doing this as well. At our regular tourney games theres always the same two or three donks that have no problem rebuying every other hand. When these two or three get seated at the same table the stack sizes between the tables is very different and when final table comes we have a table with huge stacks mixing in with tables that might not of had any rebuys

For two tables, seats were redrawn every hour (every three blind levels), and when combined into a single table. Expanding the last-three-table redraw thought, seats at the 9-player final table were redrawn at 6 players and again at 3 players (lose 1/3 of field, lose 1/2 of field).

Worked great, and really mixed up the game (not having the same aggro big stack banging on your BB from the button for hours on end, etc.). Players found it harder to get into a rhythm (a good thing imo), but it was a lot of extra work from an organizer's perspective. Killed about 30 minutes overall, too, if time is a concern.

In a vacuum, I'd probably continue it. But one of the goals of our group is to help prepare players for events outside of our circle (including casino play), so I disbanded the idea in favor of standard tournament seating and redraw rules.

 

[Trihonda]

Ive done both ways, but prefer the redraw with seat one taking the deal.

 

[TexRex]

We redraw, and redraw for dealer position.

When we go from 3 to 2, we fill in, but we've never had more than 3 in a tournament I've run.

BG's right about game management. Playing dealers, especially if you don't have enough qualified dealers, can complicate this even more. As much as I love the idea of random seating, that concept is easy for casinos where dealers don't play. Where you have only a few qualified dealers (like we do), and table arrangements that dictate where dealers sit, random seating is lost. When the host is the tournament director and responsible for checking in late players, that is another challenge to random seating.

Casinos don't have these problems. Casinos do this all the time and might have more time for breaks. For the home host, there is something to be said for getting players used to outside events, but I'd weigh that against your own game management. It's not just your time as the host. It's your players' time too. Time lost complicating your management should be weighed against the benefit to your group.

Redrawing the final table doesn't take long. That is part of our rules, so players expect it. Newcomers learn quickly. It does take maybe 5 minutes, but it only happens once.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

By definition, nothing can ever be more fair than a random draw of all participants. And it's the de facto standard (and rule) to redraw for the last 3 tables, not just the final table.

That's TDA? Huh, learned something new today.

And of course nothing is more fair then random seating. However, it seems to me that filling in empty seats randomly is negligibly less fair, especially when weighed against the extra time required for a full redraw.

But I'm mostly a cash game guy, and I defer to your superior tourney knowledge. (y) :thumbsup:

 

[bivey]

I redraw.

 

[Gobbs]

Not that it is a big deal, but what is the purpose of drawing for the button? It seems like a waste of time to me (assuming the redraw for seats was random).

 

[TexRex]

Gobbs, I can't speak for others, but since I have two dedicated dealers that sit in specific seats, our seating isn't entirely random. The others draw a seating chip labeled 1-8. While I could let Seat 1 be the first dealer, my actual dealers would never have a chance. Or, I could have the dealer who draws Dealer 1 (not 2) deal first. But instead, once seated, one dealer deals a card face up to everyone. Highest card is the first dealer, and in case of a tie, tied players get a second card until the tie is broken.

If I didn't have dedicated dealer seats and only a few qualified dealers, I'd draw seats 1-10 and let the one who draws 1 be the first dealer.