Please help me with my poker room, PCF!

Mr Winberg

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,097
Reaction score
4,106
Location
Sweden
Hi y'all, I need some guidance, please!

We've bought a house and there's a room where I can host poker! I already have a poker table and would now like to buy two more, but I have no idea about sizes. I would love to have octagonals, but I don't think they would fit, so I think it'll have to be standard ovals.

Here are the specifics:
  • The room is 720cm × 490cm.
  • I hate 10-handed poker and can barely stand 9-handed, so I want tables for 8.
  • Although I want 8 to sit comfortably, the tables will need to be stowable (it's not a permanent poker room) so I need to find a sweetspot regarding size.
  • I'd like to hear your thoughts on the length and width of the tables (see the blue tables in my BonScot-esque drawing. The red is my current table)
  • I'd also like to hear your thoughts on the recommended distance from the wall to the table (X) and the distance between tables (Y)
  • Needless to say, 2X+Y+2W=490
  • Anything else I'm missing? Perhaps another layout is better?
It's perfectly fine to give me responses in feet and inches. The room width is:
SmartSelect_20210507-233211_Chrome.jpg


And now to the artwork:

20210508_081603.jpg


No, that's not a surprised robot, that's my future poker room!

Thanks!
 
Last edited:

Coyote

4 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2018
Messages
5,496
Reaction score
7,971
Location
Athens, Greece
If this is not going to be a permanent poker room, what shall its use be the rest of the time?
Shall it house some extra furniture or not?
Where are the tables going to be stored? (mind you, the better the tables, the heavier they are).

Given all the above, do you really want to have three (3) tables? Are you sure you can accommodate 24 people peeing? (let alone crapping, God forbid), and where can they get their drinks and boiled sausages and bread from?

To get some elementary facts straight, your "Y" should just be 2x X.
And X from table edge to the wall or any obstacle / piece of furniture just can't be less than 75cm absolute minimum (or 30in=76.2cm, for our somewhat fatter North American friends) :p

I 'd use two 120x200cm or 122x203cm (48x80in) tables placed parallel to each other, on the vertical axis of this drawing.
Each hosting 9 players or 8 players and a dedicated dealer, assymetrically seated though:p @justsomedude:)

That should leave some vital room for usefull furniture, kitchenette, fridge, chip displays etc.
I won't embark on gruesome talk about toilets; just happy to have given you a hint.:)
 

TX_Golf_N_Poker

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2020
Messages
3,310
Reaction score
4,082
Location
Humble, TX
Why do you think octagonal tables wouldn't fit? Room looks plenty big if your drawing is to scale. Put the oval table in the center, and a little closer to wall on the right. I'm assuming the pink line is the door to enter the room. Then put the two octagons in the back corners? I'm not an artist and don't have a decent graphic design program or I would draw it out, but just from eyeballing, I think it would work just fine.
 

Irish

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
4,330
Reaction score
10,909
Location
NJ
I typically use 2' (~61cm) as the minimum clearance around a table to a wall. For 8 man tables, I'd go between 84"x44" (spacious) and 72"x44" (average) for the ovals, which would leave you plenty of room between tables. Any wider than 44" and you start to get too wide, IMHO.

Octagons would work with the setup too. Two 54" octagons, offset just a bit, would work fine and maximize interior space (if desired)

1620433077442.png



Or you could go a little bigger and do full 60" wide octagons by just offsetting all the tables a bit:

1620433186597.png
 

Mr Winberg

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,097
Reaction score
4,106
Location
Sweden
Thanks for all the input, keep it comming!!
Given all the above, do you really want to have three (3) tables? Are you sure you can accommodate 24 people peeing? (let alone crapping, God forbid), and where can they get
Yes, 3 tables. We're usually around 20 players.
Peeing should work fine, I hope. There's a ban on crapping ;-)

To get some elementary facts straight, your "Y" should just be 2x X.
Are you sure? I would think Y would be smaller since the two players who are sitting behind each other rarely get up at the same time.

Thanks for the numbers, though!

Why do you think octagonal tables wouldn't fit?
Just my initial calculation, which may very well be wrong.
Room looks plenty big if your drawing is to scale.
Not even close to scale! @BonScot has taught me well, so nothing is ever in scale!
I'm assuming the pink line is the door to enter the room.
I didn't see that, lol! It's actually from my screen when I took a screenshot. The entrance is actually down to the left, about 2 meters wide. Perhaps I should add it... Good catch!
put the two octagons in the back corners?
Intriguing idea!

I typically use 2' (~61cm) as the minimum clearance around a table to a wall. For 8 man tables, I'd go between 84"x44" (spacious) and 72"x44" (average) for the ovals, which would leave you plenty of room between tables. Any wider than 44" and you start to get too wide, IMHO.

Octagons would work with the setup too. Two 54" octagons, offset just a bit, would work fine and maximize interior space (if desired)

View attachment 694999


Or you could go a little bigger and do full 60" wide octagons by just offsetting all the tables a bit:

View attachment 695000
Excellent reply, @Irish! Is 36" enough between the two octagonals? Or maybe it doesn't matter that much because it just affects 2 players?


To all:
Another reason for not going for octagonals is that I'm not sure I can order any from within EU. So while I really appreciate feedback on octagons, I'd like to explore oval sizing as well:

How would for e.g. 105cm×200cm octagonals work for 8 players? Could I drop down to 105×190? Is 105 too thin?
Note: 8 players, no dedicated dealer. If ever 9, then I'm fine with it being a bit tight. (And yes, even in the OOC thread I'm fine with it being a bit tight. More than fine!)

With 105 wide, 2X+Y+2W= 80×2+120+2×105

With 110 wide, something has to give. Either drop X down to 75cm or Y down to 110.
 
Last edited:

Mr Winberg

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,097
Reaction score
4,106
Location
Sweden
I 'd use two 120x200cm or 122x203cm (48x80in) tables placed parallel to each other, on the vertical axis of this drawing
Do you mean all three tables then in parallel? I don't think it will fit. Even if the two new tables are just 105 wide, the 720 constraint leaves 390cm for seating room for 2 X and 2 Y. It works with X=75 and Y=120, but I fear the overall layout might seem tight.
 

TX_Golf_N_Poker

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2020
Messages
3,310
Reaction score
4,082
Location
Humble, TX
OP picture edited after @TX_Golf_N_Poker's feedback
OK, I just remembered that I was playing around with some Floorplan software a few months ago. So I'm going to draw this up for you. TO SCALE! LOL!

Also, check this out. If you definitely only want a table for 8, according to this link from Gorilla tables, you only need it to be 66 inches long x 44. I'll start with that size, but if you want a different size, just let me know and I'll change it.

https://gorillagaming.net/pub-table/
 

TX_Golf_N_Poker

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2020
Messages
3,310
Reaction score
4,082
Location
Humble, TX
OK, here ya go. I lengthened them just a bit, so each of these tables is 72" x 44"

1620456431666.png


Obviously the room is plenty big enough and the tables could be extended all the way out to 96" if you wanted. Given the revised door location, this is how I would set up the tables, but honestly you have numerous different ways you could arrange them.

Headed off to bed, but I'll check back here in the morning and happy to do any revisions to the size or locations of the tables for you.
 

Mr Winberg

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,097
Reaction score
4,106
Location
Sweden
OK, here ya go. I lengthened them just a bit, so each of these tables is 72" x 44"

View attachment 695182

Obviously the room is plenty big enough and the tables could be extended all the way out to 96" if you wanted. Given the revised door location, this is how I would set up the tables, but honestly you have numerous different ways you could arrange them.

Headed off to bed, but I'll check back here in the morning and happy to do any revisions to the size or locations of the tables for you.

I really appreciate this!! Could you please make a layout roughly as the one in the OP, please? With my original table in it's real size and location? And the two top being 110×200? I would love to see how that looks!

Thanks!!
 

BonScot

4 of a Kind
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
Messages
5,387
Reaction score
15,291
Location
Glasgow Scotland
Thanks for all the input, keep it comming!!

Yes, 3 tables. We're usually around 20 players.
Peeing should work fine, I hope. There's a ban on crapping ;-)


Are you sure? I would think Y would be smaller since the two players who are sitting behind each other rarely get up at the same time.

Thanks for the numbers, though!


Just my initial calculation, which may very well be wrong.

Not even close to scale! @BonScot has taught me well, so nothing is ever in scale!

I didn't see that, lol! It's actually from my screen when I took a screenshot. The entrance is actually down to the left, about 2 meters wide. Perhaps I should add it... Good catch!

Intriguing idea!


Excellent reply, @Irish! Is 36" enough between the two octagonals? Or maybe it doesn't matter that much because it just affects 2 players?


To all:
Another reason for not going for octagonals is that I'm not sure I can order any from within EU. So while I really appreciate feedback on octagons, I'd like to explore oval sizing as well:

How would for e.g. 105cm×200cm octagonals work for 8 players? Could I drop down to 105×190? Is 105 too thin?
Note: 8 players, no dedicated dealer. If ever 9, then I'm fine with it being a bit tight. (And yes, even in the OOC thread I'm fine with it being a bit tight. More than fine!)

With 105 wide, 2X+Y+2W= 80×2+120+2×105

With 110 wide, something has to give. Either drop X down to 75cm or Y down to 110.
Some things just can’t be taught. You’re a natural :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:
 

Irish

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2013
Messages
4,330
Reaction score
10,909
Location
NJ
105×190 is about 24" per player, which is fine. 105 is the thinnest I would go.
 

TX_Golf_N_Poker

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2020
Messages
3,310
Reaction score
4,082
Location
Humble, TX
How's this?

1620486269623.png


I still don't have the quirks of using this program down, so the reason why the dimensions are a bit odd. But you get the idea.

Couldn't figure out how to change the dimensions to metric, so tables are 79" x 44" which is a fraction of an inch over 200cm x 110cm.
 
Last edited:

Mr Winberg

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,097
Reaction score
4,106
Location
Sweden
How's this?

View attachment 695292

I still don't have the quirks of using this program down, so the reason why the dimensions are a bit odd. But you get the idea.

Couldn't figure out how to change the dimensions to metric, so tables are 79" x 44" which is a fraction of an inch over 200cm x 110cm.

Thanks!

To all:
If I went this route, I guess the positioning would need to be so that X=80cm and Y=110, or thereabouts. Would that work? I guess 80cm to the wall is fine, but is 110cm between the tables too short?
 
Last edited:

LotsOfChips

Flush
Joined
Jul 10, 2019
Messages
1,351
Reaction score
1,546
Location
UTG +1
The last diagram has way too little room between the top two tables. Remember that EACH table needs enough room for a player to move his chair back from the table to get in and out.

The staggered design seems to have a lot better flow, and there is room for the snack table and hot dog roller in the top left corner.
 

LotsOfChips

Flush
Joined
Jul 10, 2019
Messages
1,351
Reaction score
1,546
Location
UTG +1
You could also set up the layout so that each table is horizontal on the page (like the lower table). Should be lots of room that way.
 

Mr Winberg

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,097
Reaction score
4,106
Location
Sweden
Remember that EACH table needs enough room for a player to move his chair back from the table to get in and out.
Valid concern. Would this solve it?
I guess the positioning would need to be so that X=80cm and Y=110, or thereabouts. Would that work? I guess 80cm to the wall is fine, but is 110cm between the tables too short?



You could also set up the layout so that each table is horizontal on the page (like the lower table). Should be lots of room that way.
That would give me these numbers, what do you think? Would it work? (My current table is 120 wide)
Do you mean all three tables then in parallel? I don't think it will fit. Even if the two new tables are just 105 wide, the 720 constraint leaves 390cm for seating room for 2 X and 2 Y. It works with X=75 and Y=120, but I fear the overall layout might seem tight.
 

Coyote

4 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2018
Messages
5,496
Reaction score
7,971
Location
Athens, Greece
Do you mean all three tables then in parallel? I don't think it will fit. Even if the two new tables are just 105 wide, the 720 constraint leaves 390cm for seating room for 2 X and 2 Y. It works with X=75 and Y=120, but I fear the overall layout might seem tight.
If you want and can manage 24 players, the best choice is to divide them equally in three tables of 8 (for tournaments, it's almost imperative).
So, yes, it's going to be tight but feasible with 42in or 107-110mm wide tables, and an X=75 and Y=just 120 (the tight part of the story). Again, you won't have invited all those people for dancing, but rather for remaining seated. :)
 

T_Chan

Full House
Site Vendor
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
3,952
Reaction score
9,752
Location
Vancouver
Any reason you can't do 3 ovals in the straight line? With 2' of space around each table, there's enough room for 3 with lots of space between the table to move around. If you think 2' isn't enough room between the tables and the walls, you can move them out a little. You don't need a full 4' between the tables.

Drawn to scale with (3x) 84"x42" tables which is the size I usually suggest for 8 players.
Screenshot 2021-05-08 22.17.04.png
 

Mr Winberg

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,097
Reaction score
4,106
Location
Sweden
Drawn to scale with (3x) 84"x42" tables which is the size I usually suggest for 8 players.
Thanks! Appreciate it!
Any reason you can't do 3 ovals in the straight line?
No, I'm just trying to look at all options. My current table is 120cm wide, so I though that maybe the room would seem less crowded with setup in the OP, but the very reason for this thread is to hear about other ways. Considering my current table, (208cm×120cm), do you still think they all should be in a straight line?

Thanks for jumping in!
 

T_Chan

Full House
Site Vendor
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
3,952
Reaction score
9,752
Location
Vancouver
I think you'll still be fine with the wider table size doing 3 tables in a line. If you turn 2 of the tables 90 degrees, I would worry about players getting "stuck".

Anyone seated around the red lines would have a hard time getting out. You'd have to squeeze between the players and the wall, or try to walk down the middle between the tables to get to the entrance at the bottom of the room.
Screenshot 2021-05-09 01.42.25.png


With the setup of your room, I would try to go narrower, closer to 101-111 cm rather than wider. You have plenty of space for length available so I'd suggest reducing the girth. *Cue out of context thread.*
 

Mr Winberg

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
2,097
Reaction score
4,106
Location
Sweden
If you turn 2 of the tables 90 degrees, I would worry about players getting "stuck".
I had not thought of this!

Usually I'm the only one who's stuck on my poker nights, I would hate it to happen to my guests!

With the setup of your room, I would try to go narrower, closer to 101-111 cm rather than wider.
Do you mean in the context of having the layout of the OP, or with your suggestion where all are in a straight line, or both?
Cue out of context thread.
There are plenty of candidates already ITT! Let's hope @WedgeRock doesn't find his way over here...
 

T_Chan

Full House
Site Vendor
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
3,952
Reaction score
9,752
Location
Vancouver
Do you mean in the context of having the layout of the OP, or with your suggestion where all are in a straight line, or both?

Both. If you have 3 tables side by side, looks like you have plenty of space to go longer, but if you go wider than you decrease the amount of space between tables/chairs.

Same goes if you rotate the top 2 tables, the space between the 2 tables is limited, but you have plenty of space between the top 2 tables and the bottom table.
 
Top Bottom