The Round Table

BonScot

Flush
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
2,220
Location
Glasgow Scotland
Saw an old beat up ex-casino table for sale over here. It was round but was massive.

What would be a decent sized round table for 8 or 9 players? Is 4 feet diameter too small?
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
2,334
Reaction score
4,084
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
Saw an old beat up ex-casino table for sale over here. It was round but was massive.

What would be a decent sized round table for 8 or 9 players? Is 4 feet diameter too small?
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.
 

Taghkanic

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
1,644
Reaction score
1,040
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
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.
 

BonScot

Flush
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
2,220
Location
Glasgow Scotland
Y
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.
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?
 

Coyote

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2018
Messages
1,719
Reaction score
1,890
Location
Athens, Greece
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 for any sort of game, but it takes up more space, for a given circumference, than other shapes.
 
Last edited:

hod

3 of a Kind
Joined
Nov 5, 2014
Messages
522
Reaction score
375
Location
Edinburgh
I made a 4 foot table back in the day. 6 players was the absolutely max (which was fine in my tiny flat). But bigger than 4 foot you end up needing a bigger room than you’d end up needing for a regular table, in my experience.
 

Sprouty

Flush
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
2,119
Reaction score
3,201
Location
Michigan
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?
 

T_Chan

Full House
Site Vendor
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
6,641
Location
Vancouver
Saw an old beat up ex-casino table for sale over here. It was round but was massive.

What would be a decent sized round table for 8 or 9 players? Is 4 feet diameter too small?
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.

52" is good for 6
56" is good for 7
60" is good for 8

Of course this all depends on the average size of your players.

Any bigger than that and you have some reach issues. Not the end of the world, players just have to be aware that cards and chips need to be pushed around by everyone in case someone can't reach. Happens all the time on oval tables too for the players at the ends.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
2,334
Reaction score
4,084
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
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 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.
 

DoubleEagle

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
3,039
Reaction score
3,522
Location
Salina, KS
Saw an old beat up ex-casino table for sale over here. It was round but was massive.

What would be a decent sized round table for 8 or 9 players? Is 4 feet diameter too small?
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.

When running tourneys, we seat eight to a 60" round table except for the final table which seats nine. Much more comfortable and you get to see a few more hands. IMO, round tables are much better for self-dealt games than the traditional oval.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2015
Messages
2,334
Reaction score
4,084
Location
Fredericksburg, VA
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...
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.
 

BonScot

Flush
Joined
Sep 18, 2017
Messages
1,414
Reaction score
2,220
Location
Glasgow Scotland
I put the unopened vegetable tray in the fridge
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.

This is what passes for a side salad in Glasgow... :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:

CF64234C-57A1-45E7-BAA4-7D9C39607D6D.jpeg
 
Last edited:

Mr Winberg

3 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2019
Messages
631
Reaction score
917
Location
Sweden
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.
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... :tdown:
 

allforcharity

4 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
5,975
Reaction score
5,425
Location
Burnaby (Greater Vancouver), BC
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... :tdown:
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.
 
Top Bottom