Tourney Re-Balance two tables during Re-Entry (1 Viewer)

[Prenders17]

Let me know how you might run this. Running a two table home tourney with re-entry up to a certain level. Started with 12... so two even tables of 6. Normally when someone re-enters a multi table tournament, they draw a new seat from all the open seats at all tables. In this case, since the tables were already balanced, we had the re-entering player just keep their seat.

Well, the two gamblers in the group, yours truly included, were at the same table. By the end of the night, Mike and I accounted for 7 of the 19 Buy - Ins. As we continued to rebuy, we created a lopsided amount of chips in play at our table. By the time we combined tables at 9 players, the players coming from the other table were miffed that they were relatively short stacked.

How would you go about it? I'm thinking in my head that at the beginning draw, instead of drawing from 6 seats at each table, draw from the full ten seats at each table, so that the remaining open seats are identifiable. Balance if needed, then as someone busts, they draw from the entire pool of remaining seats. If a person busts off table one draws a seat at table 2, and that requires a re-balance, then some player at table 2 gets moved. Is that correct? Would you intentionally track the number of buy-ins in play at each table, and specifically make a player draw a seat from the table with fewer entries?

Also, sidebar. This was my first tourney after graduating from dice chips. Put my new Claysmith Mint set into action, and it was a huge hit. Cuz you know.... Chips.

Thanks all!

 

[Justin Olson]

we do knocked out player swaps tables. We tried just moving knocked out player to next BB position, and next BB takes the knocked out players spot. My crew didnt get it. So we just decided to swap same positions. So if UTG+2 gets knocked out, we have the UTG+2's swap tables......

 

[TexRex]

Prenders, having 2 players account for more than 1/3 of the re-entries is why I think I prefer re-entry to re-buy. Having a re-entry get a seat at the other table and moving someone else keeps the tournament from becoming more than 1 re-entry lopsided. I hadn't really thought of the issue of it becoming lopsided with chips though. In our re-entry, we only allow 1 re-entry per player.

I could easily imagine a 2-table game with re-buys, and getting 2 or 3 players at one table that re-buy multiple times. Since in a re-buy a guy keeps the same seat, if the other table was more conservative, when you went to final table, it could be very lopsided. Perhaps this has been brought up before, but I don't remember it. It's one more thing to think about as the host. I'm guessing it wouldn't come up often, but boy, the night it did, that would be a problem.

 

[JustinInMN]

Okay so I want to make sure I understand the dilemma.

The knockouts are always leaving the same table with 5 players so all of the new chips are going to the table that is short?

I wouldn't usually consider this a problem, but your situation seems a little extreme, and it is magnified because the tournament starts with two short tables.

I think the standard way is to assume it evens out. An initial random draw means everyone at least has an equal chance to be at that table.

However, the alternative is what you described. Re-entries have to draw from all available seats even if means a double switch (and a therefore a second draw for those at the overpopulated table, or you can just move UTG to the BB seat at the other table.)

The second method seems like a hassle, but I guess you can decide if it's worth it.

 

[Prenders17]

Basically yeah, each table has 6, and the same guys kept re-entering. By the end of the re-entry period, one table had 7 stacks on it and the other had 14.

 

[DoubleEagle]

I'm not a fan of moving a player to re-balance because there is a re-entry. If tables are even, I would have the re-entry player draw a new seat at their same table. Getting moved is always a big disadvantage. I would not like it if I got moved because of this.

 

[JustinInMN]

I'm not a fan of moving a player to re-balance because there is a re-entry. If tables are even, I would have the re-entry player draw a new seat at their same table. Getting moved is always a big disadvantage. I would not like it if I got moved because of this.

This is the best reason I would say just draw to the shorter table as usual. Now that said, I think @Prenders17 is saying that his players think it's disadvantageous to stay at a table that has fewer chips, and the new chips should have a chance to be drawn to either table.

This is the tradeoff for sure. I think I'm with @DoubleEagle, I wouldn't make it, and let the initial draw be the equalizer. But if your game is demanding a change, I think the players need to understand there will be more player moves and those disadvantages should be weighed in the equation.

 

[Prenders17]

That’s correct. I agree, nobody likes getting moved. They’re simultaneously saying they don’t like getting the the final table and finding they all have below avg chip stacks. Darned if you do, darned if you don’t.

I’m sort of thinking that having the re-entry draw from all open seats at both tables, giving the chips a fair chance to end up in either location, and then moving a player if necessary is the fairest way to go. TDA seems to defer to elements of chance to balance fair play. And not that someone would in our game, but theoretically it would keep a short stack from trying to time their busy to guarantee themselves a move to a different table. I guess. Or they can all have a nice glass of Shut The Hell Up and enjoy the free beer and nice spread that has been so graciously provided.

 

[Prenders17]

(Kidding, of course.)