Round vs oval vs octagon tables for 8 player self dealt games?

Oval vs round poker table?

  • Oval

    Votes: 36 38.7%
  • Round

    Votes: 37 39.8%
  • Octagon

    Votes: 20 21.5%

  • Total voters
    93

Wils

Flush
Joined
Jun 17, 2015
Messages
1,263
Reaction score
1,036
Location
UK
If you have a dedicated dealer, then oval is my preference. It's the shape that allows for the most space per player.
Gotta disagree with this. You can fit an unlimited number of players around a round table, as long as they sit far back enough :)
 

Ronoh

Full House
Joined
Nov 2, 2014
Messages
4,106
Reaction score
5,025
Location
Ohio
Not exactly true. Since the octagon players are 'squared-up', they actually have more user space available to them than the players that are 'rounded-forward' on the round table. In essence, the octagon players are quite literally forced outwards, preventing them from taking up body space closer to the circumference of the 60" diameter round -- and creating more personal space in the process.
More user space? An octogon is much more cramped at the knees and elbows than a round is. A round has a larger perimeter than an octogon... if you have eight people even spaced around a round table they are going to be sitting exactly where they would be sitting if the table was eight sided only they will be roughly two inches further back (elbow and knee room). A 60" octogon only measures 60" going from corner to corner, edge to edge is a little over 55".

I spent a whole lot of time building my all wood 60" octogon table. It's very pretty and it's great for hearts, spades, board games and the like. Played eight handed poker on it once. Once. For ten minutes before bringing out the oval.
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
16,877
Reaction score
18,712
Location
Atlanta
A 60" octogon only measures 60" going from corner to corner, edge to edge is a little over 55".
That was my point. An octagon that measures 60" from flat side to flat side has more available room than a 60" diameter round, because the point-to-point distance is larger than 60".
 

Trihonda

4 of a Kind
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
7,103
Reaction score
6,566
Location
Wisconsin
I agree the poll is fundamentally flawed. It needs more specifics. As stated, if your game has 7 players max, I vote round. 7+ players, the. I vote oval. In no instance do I vote octagonal.

Good premise/topic. Just needs to be more focused
 

abby99

Full House
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
2,553
Reaction score
3,455
Location
Iowa
Perhaps a diagram will help. The diameter of the circle is equal to the flat-side-to-flat-side distance of the octagon. The octagon has a little more area and perimeter than the circle.

Circle-Octagon.jpg
 

Attachments

Trihonda

4 of a Kind
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
7,103
Reaction score
6,566
Location
Wisconsin
True on the area, but is it usable area? Are we storing drinks in that area, chips? I'd argue that area (point) is the exact reason that makes Octagonal tables less flexible imho.

The usable area remains constant and sacrifices are made.

Round > octagonal

Oval vs round depends on the number of players.
 

BGinGA

Royal Flush
Tourney Director
Joined
Oct 29, 2014
Messages
16,877
Reaction score
18,712
Location
Atlanta
True on the area, but is it usable area? Are we storing drinks in that area, chips? I'd argue that area (point) is the exact reason that makes Octagonal tables less flexible imho.

The usable area remains constant and sacrifices are made.

Round > octagonal
Not that I'm a big octagon table fan, but yeah, those 'corners' do offer space for drinks (in cupholders or otherswise) plus small areas that are out-of-the-way for phones, etc.

 

abby99

Full House
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
2,553
Reaction score
3,455
Location
Iowa
Sorry if this is a duplicate point . . .

True, long ovals work well with a dedicated dealer for flop and draw games. Stud games, however, are a problem on a long oval. Even with jumbo index cards, some players on one end will not be able to see the up cards on the other end.

Ultimately, the "best" table depends on the number of players, the games being played, and whether a dedicated dealer is present.
 

T_Chan

Full House
Site Vendor
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
2,586
Reaction score
5,239
Location
Vancouver
My preference is oval purely for space. But as the title asks, for a self dealt game, I think it's pretty clear it's a round vs octagon debate for ease of dealing. The size is ultimately up to the owner of the table to figure out how much space they want per player based on the # of players, then if they want the extra little bit of rail and go with octagon providing they're ok with the shape. Octagons are a smidge bigger than rounds but then the debate starts about what happens when you have less or more than 8 players.

I would still choose oval for a self dealt game myself since I can pitch cards from the ends no problem, but that's not the case for everyone.

Another thing to point out is the reach. On an oval table, the guys at the ends have to reach for chips and cards. On a really big round or octagon, everyone has to reach. To me, this isn't a big issue at all since everyone is usually pretty helpful and help move the cards and chips along to whomever they're going to. Verbalizing "A little help" is all that's required if someone can't reach and nobody's paying attention to help, then everything gets scooped/pushed/thrown over.
 

abby99

Full House
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
2,553
Reaction score
3,455
Location
Iowa
Not that I'm a big octagon table fan, but yeah, those 'corners' do offer space for drinks (in cupholders or otherswise) plus small areas that are out-of-the-way for phones, etc.

Octagon tables aren't so bad. However, it would help if somebody would ease those corners so that when there other than four or eight players in the game, nobody gets stuck sitting at an uncomfortable corner.

Oh, wait . . .


Then you'd have a round table! :ROFL: :ROFLMAO::ROFL: :ROFLMAO::ROFL: :ROFLMAO::ROFL: :ROFLMAO::ROFL: :ROFLMAO::ROFL: :ROFLMAO::ROFL: :ROFLMAO::ROFL: :ROFLMAO:
 

CraigT78

Full House
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
4,102
Reaction score
6,453
Location
Dallas
Two 8 player tables was not efficient, as tournaments ran 4 at one table and 5 at the other before breaking down to one table.
This is my current problem. I have two octagon tables, and even though the general consensus is not positive, I love them. What I don't love is waiting for that 9th player to bust out to combine tables. Problem is that I don't really have the space for a full size table. What would be the minimum length for a table to seat 10? 84"?
 

mummel

Full House
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
3,018
Reaction score
1,024
Location
USA
I agree the poll is fundamentally flawed. It needs more specifics. As stated, if your game has 7 players max, I vote round. 7+ players, the. I vote oval. In no instance do I vote octagonal.

Good premise/topic. Just needs to be more focused
This is my current problem. I have two octagon tables, and even though the general consensus is not positive, I love them. What I don't love is waiting for that 9th player to bust out to combine tables. Problem is that I don't really have the space for a full size table. What would be the minimum length for a table to seat 10? 84"?
Yes 84, preferably 96. But 84 gives 22 inches of room for 10 players, which is acceptable.
 

mummel

Full House
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
3,018
Reaction score
1,024
Location
USA
The master has spoken.

Agree on all points.

I've owned all three types of tables, and if I could fit 10 at a nice round table, and have the space, I'd do so. However, I think 10 people at a round table would require 60" + width, and that is too far a reach (for scooping pots, etc...). I think 54" wides are ok. My last round table was a 51" and it was very nice. However, I really think it was limited to how many people could fit comfortably (I think 7 max, sometimes 8 in a pinch). I loved my round table for smaller dealer's choice games (or with neighbors). It was the most friendly (equal) setting. Ovals are necessary depending on the people.

I wonder how people are measuring their 54" octagons? Are they measuring side to side, or corner to corner (like a TV, lol).

Round > Oval > Octagon

Drink carts > Cupholders in rail > No drinks (go thirsty) > Cupholders in the play surface
Would a 72" round be too big? I mean, with an oval, people are helping to move chips along to the winner anyway, so why wouldnt they just do that with a large round? Or is it that some chips will get stuck in the middle with no one being able to reach them, and you would have to stand up?

Cause a 72" round gives 28" of elbow room, which is decent, plus more social.
 

Trihonda

4 of a Kind
Moderator
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
7,103
Reaction score
6,566
Location
Wisconsin
Would a 72" round be too big? I mean, with an oval, people are helping to move chips along to the winner anyway, so why wouldnt they just do that with a large round? Or is it that some chips will get stuck in the middle with no one being able to reach them, and you would have to stand up?

Cause a 72" round gives 28" of elbow room, which is decent, plus more social.
lol @ 72" round table... Ya, with an oval, people often help push pots. However, with a 72" round, no one will be able to reach the middle. Please scratch that idea.

I think plenty has been opined on the table subject. It's up to you to decide based on your space available, number of players, and other preferences.
 

bentax1978

4 of a Kind
Joined
Jul 10, 2015
Messages
6,729
Reaction score
9,283
Location
Niskayuna, NY
Would a 72" round be too big? I mean, with an oval, people are helping to move chips along to the winner anyway, so why wouldnt they just do that with a large round? Or is it that some chips will get stuck in the middle with no one being able to reach them, and you would have to stand up?

Cause a 72" round gives 28" of elbow room, which is decent, plus more social.
As @Trihonda said, a 72" round is a bad idea. When I first started hosting 10+ years ago, we used a 60" round table and it was less than ideal. Sure we could cram 8-10 people around it, but it was certainly pushing the limit in terms of size for a round table. 72", IMO, would be a huge mistake, pun intended.
 

TroyMan

3 of a Kind
Joined
Aug 5, 2016
Messages
552
Reaction score
387
Location
Atlanta, Ga
I prefer round.

What game(s) you typically play might be a consideration. If it's mostly just hold'em / omaha you might want an oval table. If it's more mixed games, I'd go with a round one.
Hmmm. From looking at your avatar, I would have thought you might prefer octa-oval.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
2,942
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
I have an oval and two octagons. I LOVE the octagon. All of my poker peeps, roughly 18 per week, prefer the octagon as well for 2 reasons:

1. Each players' space is clearly defined. You don't have to have the discussion with the wide legged or wide armed fool about scooting into their own space.

2. You never have to be the player dealing from the end of the long octagon table.

We usually start the night with 16 to 20 players and work down to 4 (early morning playing. We always end up on the octagon in a short handed game. It really has never even been a problem.
 

TroyMan

3 of a Kind
Joined
Aug 5, 2016
Messages
552
Reaction score
387
Location
Atlanta, Ga
I have an oval and two octagons. I LOVE the octagon. All of my poker peeps, roughly 18 per week, prefer the octagon as well for 2 reasons:

1. Each players' space is clearly defined. You don't have to have the discussion with the wide legged or wide armed fool about scooting into their own space.

2. You never have to be the player dealing from the end of the long octagon table.

We usually start the night with 16 to 20 players and work down to 4 (early morning playing. We always end up on the octagon in a short handed game. It really has never even been a problem.
What size are your octagons?
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
2,942
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
What size are your octagons?
The top one in the pics below is 58" from one end of the arm rest to the other. Felt area is 39" with a 6" race track. This one seats 8 okay, but is a tad tight if you have 2 big guys (or gals) bookending you.

The bottom one is oversized (68" diameter, 48" felt area, and 6" race track). That one is PERFECT for 8 players and comfortable with 10. It may seem a bit big, but the the speed felt makes dealing a breeze.

20170108_135629.jpg

20170108_135745.jpg
 

Forest@Farmington

3 of a Kind
Joined
Nov 5, 2014
Messages
666
Reaction score
234
Location
Wisconsin
Those look really nice. I have one that matches the top and the only issue I have is the chip holders. I would much rather have them flat. What are your and your players thought on the rail.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
2,942
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Those look really nice. I have one that matches the top and the only issue I have is the chip holders. I would much rather have them flat. What are your and your players thought on the rail.
Thanks!! Most players, including me, just stack our chips, thus the chip racks are fairly useless. I would build it without if I did it over again.

We all like the rail. It provides an areas for people to put drinks on (some prefer their glass of scotch or bourbon on the rail right in front of them) and a place for a bowl of snacks. Without the rail, I'd have to be the felt police :D.
 

Mental Nomad

Full House
Joined
Nov 7, 2014
Messages
3,775
Reaction score
2,302
Location
NJ - NY/NJ metro area
The bottom one is oversized (68" diameter, 48" felt area, and 6" race track). That one is PERFECT for 8 players and comfortable with 10. It may seem a bit big, but the the speed felt makes dealing a breeze.
Dealing's not the concern... it's collecting cards and chips. A 68" table is 34" from edge to center. Sit down and belly up to any table, and see how far your comfortable reach is.

I'm 6'5" tall, and more than 36" is no longer "comfortable," and probably wouldn't happen without knocking over 20-stacks of chips in front of me. This means I can pull about half the pot, but need to rely on people from the other side pushing stuff to me on a win, and vice-versa... and the other side will not always be my height.

I guess your friends are tall, on average, and they don't mind getting up to push and pull pots and cards? If they like it, that's cool, but I have a lot of players who would not be comfortable in that arrangement - especially some of the "bigger" ones, although they probably wouldn't say it out loud. (It would be embarrassing to keep saying, "help me, because I'm very fat...")
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
1,867
Reaction score
2,942
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Dealing's not the concern... it's collecting cards and chips. A 68" table is 34" from edge to center. Sit down and belly up to any table, and see how far your comfortable reach is.

I'm 6'5" tall, and more than 36" is no longer "comfortable," and probably wouldn't happen without knocking over 20-stacks of chips in front of me. This means I can pull about half the pot, but need to rely on people from the other side pushing stuff to me on a win, and vice-versa... and the other side will not always be my height.

I guess your friends are tall, on average, and they don't mind getting up to push and pull pots and cards? If they like it, that's cool, but I have a lot of players who would not be comfortable in that arrangement - especially some of the "bigger" ones, although they probably wouldn't say it out loud. (It would be embarrassing to keep saying, "help me, because I'm very fat...")
It hasn't been a problem. As they rake the chips, they're usually happy enough to push the cards. No different than playing on an oval table if you're one of the lucky 4 at either end. Somebody will have to push the chips or cards at some point in the night. We've been using it for 6 years with no problemos.
 
Top Bottom