Tourney Seating a Multi Table Tourney (1 Viewer)

[CraigT78]

Question for the masses.

When hosting a multi-table event of 30-ish people, would you prefer 3 tables of 10 or 2 tables of 7 and two tables of 8?

My thoughts are plan of 4 tables to allow for any stragglers who show up and then condense to 3 tables of 9 once we reach 27 players.

So if 27 show up - 3 tables of 9
More then 27 - 4 tables of 7/8 per table.

Any comments? Right now I have 28 people signed up but want to plan for at least 2 unannounced additions and a possible no-show or 2.

Thanks!

 

[Trihonda]

My preference (for tourneys) is the more players the better. I'd vote for three tables. As a host, just saves condensing when you lose two players.

 

[Poker Zombie]

3 10s, provided the tables are built for 10, and not "fitting in" a 10th.

As a host, it's 1 less stoppage to condense tables.

Showing unannounced is just as bad as no-showing. I never plan anymore for the unannounced. We had one show unannounced the event before last. I took him aside and explained that there might not be a seat available for him. Sorry you drove out here, but let me know ahead of time. I send out invites 2 weeks in advance, you cannot decide until you arrive to tell me yes?

 

[BGinGA]

Four tables (averaging 7.5 players each) will play much faster (and looser) than three tables of 10 players each. Any extra time used to re-seat (or redraw, if done properly) after losing three players will be made up in faster play (and earlier knockouts). Provided you have ample room space for four tables, the players will also be more comfortable and theoretically relaxed when not playing 10-handed.

Personally, I'd run the four tables until you reached 24 players (minimum 6 per table x 4), then redraw seats for three tables of eight. Then run it down to 18 and redraw for two tables of nine. The entire event will be more enjoyable and run quicker.

 

[DJ Mack]

Four tables (averaging 7.5 players each) will play much faster (and looser) than three tables of 10 players each. Any extra time used to re-seat (or redraw, if done properly) after losing three players will be made up in faster play (and earlier knockouts). Provided you have ample room space for four tables, the players will also be more comfortable and theoretically relaxed when not playing 10-handed.

Does the fact that this is a charitable event where copious rebuys may be encouraged change that at all? In other words knockouts that free up a seat aren't going to happen until later and they're probably going to happen in bunches when they do occur.

 

[BGinGA]

Imo, smaller table sizes is even better for a low-stakes small-stack charity event with multiple re-buys --- you want the participants playing as loosely as possible, so that more income is generated for charity. See the addendum to my previous post.

 

[WedgeRock]

Question for the masses.

When hosting a multi-table event of 30-ish people, would you prefer 3 tables of 10 or 2 tables of 7 and two tables of 8?

My thoughts are plan of 4 tables to allow for any stragglers who show up and then condense to 3 tables of 9 once we reach 27 players.

So if 27 show up - 3 tables of 9
More then 27 - 4 tables of 7/8 per table.

Any comments? Right now I have 28 people signed up but want to plan for at least 2 unannounced additions and a possible no-show or 2.

Thanks!

I agree. If you can get them in evenly on 3 tables, do it, but if you have to go to a 4th table anyway, spread it out evenly.

 

[T_Chan]

Agreed with BGinGA, 8 or less per table if you can. Looser play. more hands per hour.

 

[GIANTDustySquid]

Four tables (averaging 7.5 players each) will play much faster (and looser) than three tables of 10 players each. Any extra time used to re-seat (or redraw, if done properly) after losing three players will be made up in faster play (and earlier knockouts). Provided you have ample room space for four tables, the players will also be more comfortable and theoretically relaxed when not playing 10-handed.

Personally, I'd run the four tables until you reached 24 players (minimum 6 per table x 4), then redraw seats for three tables of eight. Then run it down to 18 and redraw for two tables of nine. The entire event will be more enjoyable and run quicker.

What is your take on combining to a final table?
We combine at 10, to save people playing 5-handed, because most our players much prefer 6+ handed. Do most people continue playing 2 tables of 5 until 9 players remain?

 

[CraigT78]

So my tables fit 9 with comfort - 10 is a squeeze especially when I make the final table

I do want fast and loose play - so will plan on 4 tables with a minimum of 6 players. Thanks everyone for the quick input.

(I always liked a 6-7 handed table vs 10 anyway)

 

[WedgeRock]

What is your take on combining to a final table?

We combine at 9 with the thought being the last two tables play 5-handed (instead of one playing 5-handed and the other playing 6-handed).

 

[CraigT78]

3 10s, provided the tables are built for 10, and not "fitting in" a 10th.

As a host, it's 1 less stoppage to condense tables.

Showing unannounced is just as bad as no-showing. I never plan anymore for the unannounced. We had one show unannounced the event before last. I took him aside and explained that there might not be a seat available for him. Sorry you drove out here, but let me know ahead of time. I send out invites 2 weeks in advance, you cannot decide until you arrive to tell me yes?

For my regular scheduled games I 100% agree - but this is a charity tournament with an invite list much bigger than usual. I'm sure I will probably get at least one "Hey - I made it". So I do want to plan for it.

 

[CraigT78]

We combine at 9 with the thought being the last two tables play 5-handed (instead of one playing 5-handed and the other playing 6-handed).

Exactly how I do it at my home game - nobody wants to squeeze in for 8-10 hands. Just wait it out until 9.

 

[Poker Zombie]

For my regular scheduled games I 100% agree - but this is a charity tournament with an invite list much bigger than usual. I'm sure I will probably get at least one "Hey - I made it". So I do want to plan for it.

Knowing this is for a charity, I 100% agree with BGinGA. 4 tables, get people knocked out faster, get more rebuys early. I might even advise a 10% chipstack bonus for rebuys to feed the rebuy fire.

 

[WedgeRock]

nobody wants to squeeze in for 8-10 hands. Just wait it out until 9.

My main table is a full 8' so it will seat 10 comfortably (at least side-to-side, if not front-to-back... my current area is smaller than I would like), but we still seat the Final Table at 9 so the two tables are playing 5-handed equally.

 

[T_Chan]

6 min is ideal, with a max of 8. Final table can be 1 more than the most players you started with at any table in general.

 

[Poker Zombie]

What is your take on combining to a final table?
We combine at 10, to save people playing 5-handed, because most our players much prefer 6+ handed. Do most people continue playing 2 tables of 5 until 9 players remain?

TDA rules indicate the final table should be the number of players per table +1 (but never more than 10). So if you play 8 handed, the final table starts at 9 players. 10 handed, 10 players start the final table.

 

[BGinGA]

What is your take on combining to a final table?
We combine at 10, to save people playing 5-handed, because most our players much prefer 6+ handed. Do most people continue playing 2 tables of 5 until 9 players remain?

My main table is a full 8' so it will seat 10 comfortably (at least side-to-side, if not front-to-back... my current area is smaller than I would like), but we still seat the Final Table at 9 so the two tables are playing 5-handed equally.

^^This. We combine at 9, but we use dedicated dealers.... and it has both feeder tables playing 5-handed. Per Zombie's note, we start all tables 8-handed, so the final table is +1 per TDA rules.

We do sometimes combine at 7 or 8 players, simply because the game format doesn't support more playing hands (SOHE, etc.).

 

[DJ Mack]

Shameless plug - if you can't make this event but you love to play loose, Craig will gladly accept donations. Don't even have to play a single hand to lose all your money. Worked well for me.

 

[v1pe]

I hate 10 handed play, 8 per table is great.

 

[dkersey]

To me it really depends on the probability of additional people showing up. If there will be a few, then do 4 tables.

I played a small tourney at Ceasars LV a couple of weeks ago, and I believe we started the tournament with 5 players each at 2 tables. We asked why don't we just start at same table, and they said they might be some people to show up late. Sure enough, within 30 minutes, all seats were taken at both tables. I'm glad we didn't combine tables, just to separate 30 minutes later.