Yes, 4' is too small. My preference would be 5' (60" across). My buddy has a round table that is 54", and it is still too small to fit 8 people comfortably.
It’s for self dealt games. The pedestal is the only way I can see it working without kneecapping half the table. What diameter do you reckon I could get away with?Careful about getting a round table which is too big—scooping pots and collecting cards becomes difficult. Lots of standing up. Or the one guy with long arms does all the work.
If you can find a round table with a pedestal leg, rather than straight legs at the edges, that makes it easier to fit 8 more comfortably at a smaller size, since you’re not losing space to the legs.
All that said, I think 7-8 at a round table is ideal for self-dealt games. You can really see everyone and all the action, so much better than at a stadium/racetrack table. And there is better action with fewer than 9.
48in is imperial for 6, but cramped for 7. Go to 50in and 7 starts becoming tolerable. 52in and 7 are fine.I plan on doing a 4 foot round for a second table as I have a pedestal to work with. So those with experience, 6 max? Is it cramped with 6 or is it a comfortable 6?
4' is likely the smallest round poker table you'll ever see. A 4' diameter table is best for 4 players, but comfortable for up to 5 players. 6 is a squeeze.
I completely agree with this. I have an oversized, 68" that fits 10 comfortably. I'm cutting it down to 60 or 62" to be more managable for 8.Absolute minimum circumference per player is 22in (55smth cm) or 24in ideally (61cm). Total circumference of a circle is 3.14x the diameter.
For 8 players (8x let's say 60 =480cm), the table's diameter should be in the area of 60in (152cm) or 155cm (61in) - absolute max 160cm (63iin).
Beyond that, the table becomes too large for most rooms and, more importantly, the middle of the table becomes impossible for anybody to reach.
So, for 9 people or more, you have to switch to an oval, which, for self-dealing purposes at least, should be as round-ish (short and wide) as possible.
The circle, as a shape, is ideal for both communicating with other people and any for any sort of game, but it takes up more space, for a given circumference, than other shapes.
I have several 60" round tables that we use regularly for up to nine players. Eight is best, but nine works unless you have some widebodies. We regularly play a nine player self-dealt game on a 60" round. If we use a dedicated dealer, then we switch to a 96" x 42" oval with a dealer cutout.
Long running debate, but I prefer octagon over round simply because octagon has defined spaces. I play with a couple fuckers (I say that lovingly) that like to melt across half the table.That was my thinking. Plus you can see everyone and it is a social game son that’s important.
Now all I need to do is find one...
Downside being that if one or more players leave, you can’t make use of their space.Long running debate, but I prefer octagon over round simply because octagon has defined spaces. I play with a couple fuckers (I say that lovingly) that like to melt across half the table.
Never thought about octagon but that makes sense. Will check it out.Long running debate, but I prefer octagon over round simply because octagon has defined spaces. I play with a couple fuckers (I say that lovingly) that like to melt across half the table.
Ha ha that’s what would happen here. Everyone would just eye the vegetable tray suspiciously and let out a collective sigh of relief when it was finally removed and put back in the fridge.I put the unopened vegetable tray in the fridge
How about for tournaments? In tournaments you're not supposed to move your seat to much, since at any time a player can be moved to a particular seat (except at the final table of course). Would you still say having an octagonal table is impractical for tourneys?Octagons are less practical. Round allows the total number of players to space themselves out organically around the whole circumference. When you have anything other than 8 people in an octagon, there are strange empty spaces.
Not at all. I didn't mean to imply that octagons are always impractical. I said that they are "less practical". Maybe it's fine if you never have more than 8 per table in a tourney, and it's self-dealt. But what if you've got 6? What if you've got 10? What if you almost always play cash and don't know if 5 or 11 people are going to show up? If I had a choice between round and octagonal, I'd probably pick round every time. But capsule/stadium- or even elliptical/kidney-shaped tables are probably even more practical.How about for tournaments? In tournaments you're not supposed to move your seat to much, since at any time a player can be moved to a particular seat (except at the final table of course). Would you still say having an octagonal table is impractical for tourneys?
I have been thinking about getting either a round or an octagonal...