Proposed rule change

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Abdul Jalib

unread,
Jul 27, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/27/99
to
When breaking a game with blinds, the rules must dictate the order in
which players move to another table and the method in which they enter
the other game. The current methods leave something to be desired.

First, consider the order. Upon a game's breaking, currently the
players draw cards to determine the order they get to choose seats in
the other game. This draw method of ordering the players encourages
players to refuse to take the big blind in short games in hopes of
breaking the game. Often someone who has just paid his blinds will
not get a seat in the other game, while someone who was walking
and attempting to break up the short game will get first seat choice
and come in immediately for free.

A proposed new rule, suggested by my wife:

* The players from a broken game shall choose seats in other
games in order from the small blind to the button and so on
around the table to the right. Those with big blind buttons come
last, and will be ordered by the same method.

In a perfect world, the button should choose first, but I fear it
would confuse people to order it as button, small blind, and then
one to the right of the button and so on around to the right.
Refusing to take the big blind in short-handed games with the hopes
of breaking the game is implicitly discouraged by the rule.

Second, consider the method of letting the players enter the other
game. At Mirage/Bellagio, the players get dealt in immediately
without posting, but they cannot wait to come in behind the button for
free. At some other casinos, the players can always wait to come in
behind the button for free. Always letting the broken game players
come in behind the button for free will cost the original players 3/4
of a small bet per player, according to a Turbo simulation of a tight
game. In a $30-$60 game, this cost to the old players would be about
$22.50 per player entering the game. This isn't fair, and it can lead
to the original game players getting out of the game if there is a
long queue of broken game players waiting to come in for free.
(I routinely did exactly that in the $40-$80 game at Hollywood Park.)

My wife's proposed new rule meshes well with the Mirage/Bellagio
rule:

* Each broken game player who takes a seat right away is eligible
to be dealt in immediately (with no post), but cannot wait until
the button passes to come in for free, except that a broken game
player who comes in between the small blind and button should wait
one hand, and then the button is moved past and the player can come
in for free. If a broken game player misses the big blind, he
gets a blind button, with the usual ramifications.

If they so choose, players will usually be able to get a
similar position in the new game compared to what they had in the game
that just broke, though spaced by a few players in between.

To prevent players from strolling around, pretending to get lost
on the way to the new table in order to miss the blinds and come
in for free, I suggest one final rule:

* The offer to come in for free starts when the first broken game
players sit down and expires upon the passing of the big blind
past each seat.

Comments are requested.

--
Abdul

Robert

unread,
Jul 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/28/99
to
On 27 Jul 1999 22:05:08 -0700, Abdul Jalib <Abd...@PosEV.com> wrote:

>When breaking a game with blinds, the rules must dictate the order in
>which players move to another table and the method in which they enter
>the other game. The current methods leave something to be desired.
>
>First, consider the order. Upon a game's breaking, currently the
>players draw cards to determine the order they get to choose seats in
>the other game. This draw method of ordering the players encourages
>players to refuse to take the big blind in short games in hopes of
>breaking the game. Often someone who has just paid his blinds will
>not get a seat in the other game, while someone who was walking
>and attempting to break up the short game will get first seat choice
>and come in immediately for free.
>
>A proposed new rule, suggested by my wife:
>
> * The players from a broken game shall choose seats in other
> games in order from the small blind to the button and so on
> around the table to the right. Those with big blind buttons come
> last, and will be ordered by the same method.
>
>In a perfect world, the button should choose first, but I fear it
>would confuse people to order it as button, small blind, and then
>one to the right of the button and so on around to the right.
>Refusing to take the big blind in short-handed games with the hopes
>of breaking the game is implicitly discouraged by the rule.
>

I've had the same idea and so, of course, I'm all for it. The
simplification of starting with the small blind and proceeding
counterclockwise is new to me and I think it's worthwhile.
It always bothered me that players who were willing to play
short-handed (like me) often got punished by posting the last
blinds and then sometimes not getting a seat in another
game. This is a much fairer method and will contribute
greatly to the survivability of a game.


>Second, consider the method of letting the players enter the other
>game. At Mirage/Bellagio, the players get dealt in immediately
>without posting, but they cannot wait to come in behind the button for
>free. At some other casinos, the players can always wait to come in
>behind the button for free. Always letting the broken game players
>come in behind the button for free will cost the original players 3/4
>of a small bet per player, according to a Turbo simulation of a tight
>game. In a $30-$60 game, this cost to the old players would be about
>$22.50 per player entering the game. This isn't fair, and it can lead
>to the original game players getting out of the game if there is a
>long queue of broken game players waiting to come in for free.
>(I routinely did exactly that in the $40-$80 game at Hollywood Park.)
>
>My wife's proposed new rule meshes well with the Mirage/Bellagio
>rule:
>
> * Each broken game player who takes a seat right away is eligible
> to be dealt in immediately (with no post), but cannot wait until
> the button passes to come in for free, except that a broken game
> player who comes in between the small blind and button should wait
> one hand, and then the button is moved past and the player can come
> in for free. If a broken game player misses the big blind, he
> gets a blind button, with the usual ramifications.
>

I think the players from a broken game should also have option of
being treated like a new player if they wish and be allowed to come
in behind the button by posting a big blind. Actually, I would
prefer that all players from broken games be treated as new
players and not be given *any* free hands. Why should the
players of the existing game give up anything to the new players?
This would also eliminate an incentive (free hands) to break up
an existing game.




>If they so choose, players will usually be able to get a
>similar position in the new game compared to what they had in the game
>that just broke, though spaced by a few players in between.
>
>To prevent players from strolling around, pretending to get lost
>on the way to the new table in order to miss the blinds and come
>in for free, I suggest one final rule:
>
> * The offer to come in for free starts when the first broken game
> players sit down and expires upon the passing of the big blind
> past each seat.
>

Suppose there is an open seat in the big blind position when the
first broken game player sits down. Does that seat get a missed
blind button?

>Comments are requested.
>
>--
>Abdul

Robert Zimmerle

EMail: r_zee@worldnet_att_net (replace underscores with periods)


CHRISTOPHER KEVLAHAN

unread,
Jul 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/28/99
to
Abdul Jalib wrote:

Oh well ...

Down here in San Diego we have "must move games", so its the
player thats been there the longest. Otherwise a player
could simply stroll in, take a seat in a shorthanded game
then end up first one in, in the main game.

Your idea has merit, but no chance. Not everybody likes
to play short handed. Plus your method seems to favor the
guy running the best at the table. After all, I've never
seen a player thats running over the table short handed ever
get up and leave. Its the guy that just got his Big Pocket
Pair beat heads up for the 3rd time in a row.

Chris K.

--
---
*veni, vedi, velcro*
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."

Jerry Fuller

unread,
Jul 28, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/28/99
to
In our room (Grand Casino Coushatta, Kinder, LA) a player must be dealt in
(in the last hand) in order to cut for position when the game breaks. This
solves the walking problem.

Jerry Fuller
Abdul Jalib <Abd...@PosEV.com> wrote in message
news:yer9081...@shell9.ba.best.com...


> When breaking a game with blinds, the rules must dictate the order in
> which players move to another table and the method in which they enter
> the other game. The current methods leave something to be desired.
>
> First, consider the order. Upon a game's breaking, currently the
> players draw cards to determine the order they get to choose seats in
> the other game. This draw method of ordering the players encourages
> players to refuse to take the big blind in short games in hopes of
> breaking the game. Often someone who has just paid his blinds will
> not get a seat in the other game, while someone who was walking
> and attempting to break up the short game will get first seat choice
> and come in immediately for free.
>
> A proposed new rule, suggested by my wife:
>
> * The players from a broken game shall choose seats in other
> games in order from the small blind to the button and so on
> around the table to the right. Those with big blind buttons come
> last, and will be ordered by the same method.
>
> In a perfect world, the button should choose first, but I fear it
> would confuse people to order it as button, small blind, and then
> one to the right of the button and so on around to the right.
> Refusing to take the big blind in short-handed games with the hopes
> of breaking the game is implicitly discouraged by the rule.
>

> Second, consider the method of letting the players enter the other
> game. At Mirage/Bellagio, the players get dealt in immediately
> without posting, but they cannot wait to come in behind the button for
> free. At some other casinos, the players can always wait to come in
> behind the button for free. Always letting the broken game players
> come in behind the button for free will cost the original players 3/4
> of a small bet per player, according to a Turbo simulation of a tight
> game. In a $30-$60 game, this cost to the old players would be about
> $22.50 per player entering the game. This isn't fair, and it can lead
> to the original game players getting out of the game if there is a
> long queue of broken game players waiting to come in for free.
> (I routinely did exactly that in the $40-$80 game at Hollywood Park.)
>
> My wife's proposed new rule meshes well with the Mirage/Bellagio
> rule:
>
> * Each broken game player who takes a seat right away is eligible
> to be dealt in immediately (with no post), but cannot wait until
> the button passes to come in for free, except that a broken game
> player who comes in between the small blind and button should wait
> one hand, and then the button is moved past and the player can come
> in for free. If a broken game player misses the big blind, he
> gets a blind button, with the usual ramifications.
>

> If they so choose, players will usually be able to get a
> similar position in the new game compared to what they had in the game
> that just broke, though spaced by a few players in between.
>
> To prevent players from strolling around, pretending to get lost
> on the way to the new table in order to miss the blinds and come
> in for free, I suggest one final rule:
>
> * The offer to come in for free starts when the first broken game
> players sit down and expires upon the passing of the big blind
> past each seat.
>

OOBLEO

unread,
Jul 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/29/99
to
Abdul asked for replies.

Why not just start with the button as first choice and go counter-clock wise
from there. If the button should have first choice base on the fact that s/he
just paid his blind, then the guy to his right is just slightly worse off then
the button. . .and so on around the table. The missed blind buttons, as you
suggested, should come in last (in order). This would certainly encourage
folks to take their blinds.

David

Abdul Jalib

unread,
Jul 29, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/29/99
to
oob...@aol.comjunksux (OOBLEO) writes:

Then the guy who's in the big blind now and hasn't paid his blinds
will get to choose a seat before the guy who's in the small blind and
has just paid his big blind. It takes several hands from the button
on to make up for taking the big blind.

--
Abdul


OOBLEO

unread,
Jul 30, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/30/99
to
Abdul and I are discussing rule changes:>> Why not just start with the button


Then why not start with the small blind (the poor guy with money invested) and
then proceed in the counterclock-wise as suggested before. This would take
care of both of our concerns.
<><><><><><><><><>
"With our tolerance, we buy our freedom."
--------Peter McWilliams

Abdul Jalib

unread,
Aug 2, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/2/99
to
msa...@aol.com (MSA1213) writes:

> >Subject: Re: Proposed rule change
> >From: Abdul Jalib


>
> >(OOBLEO) writes:
> >
> >> Abdul asked for replies.
> >>

> >> Why not just start with the button as first choice and go counter-clock
> >wise
> >> from there. If the button should have first choice base on the fact that
> >> s/he just paid his blind, then the guy to his right is just slightly worse
> >> off then the button. . .and so on around the table. The missed blind
> >> buttons, as you suggested, should come in last (in order). This would
> >> certainly encourage folks to take their blinds.
> >>
> >> David
> >
> >Then the guy who's in the big blind now and hasn't paid his blinds
> >will get to choose a seat before the guy who's in the small blind and
> >has just paid his big blind. It takes several hands from the button
> >on to make up for taking the big blind.
> >
> >--
> >Abdul
> >
>

> I had the same idea of counterclockwise being fairer because they paid
> blinds more recently. It should start with the player who has last paid
> the big blind and go counterclockwise from there. Thus the player who
> just paid the small blind is second,the last button third (assuming no
> double post between blinds and button),etc. This means the most recent
> payees get first choice. (One could argue last small blind should be
> first as paid both ,button second, big blind third or second, etc but
> tooo complex.) This means those who paid blinds most recently get
> first choice as is fair. This also leads to a stable equilibrium unlike
> a clockwise order. The next person may want to pay his blind before the
> game folds just so that he has first choice! This is great because then
> the game may actually keep going!

This is simply what I said, If you thought I said to go clockwise,
you misread what I said.

The question remains: should any of the broken game players get any free
hands in the new game?

Pros: encourages players to stay after their game breaks,
exists now as a tradition

Cons: unfairly costs players in other games,
encourages games to break

> Where must move games exist such as where I play and another responder
> did, to be fair the choice should remain most senior player first. The
> end of the game should not change the order or latecomers may try to
> get in must move games and end them.

And again, if a must-move game breaks, should any of the broken game
players get any free hands in the main game? (This should probably
relate to how a must-move from a live game works, and this varies by
casino. In L.A., you move immediately but come in behind the button
for free. At Bellagio, you can wait until your big blind to leave,
and you must wait until your big blind to come in or else post both
a big and a dead small blind.)

--
Abdul

MSA1213

unread,
Aug 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/3/99
to

Jeffrey B. Siegal

unread,
Aug 3, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/3/99
to Abdul Jalib
Abdul Jalib wrote:
> And again, if a must-move game breaks, should any of the broken game
> players get any free hands in the main game? (This should probably
> relate to how a must-move from a live game works, and this varies by
> casino. In L.A., you move immediately but come in behind the button
> for free. At Bellagio, you can wait until your big blind to leave,
> and you must wait until your big blind to come in or else post both
> a big and a dead small blind.)

I hate the ways this is done in California. If you are playing in the
main game, you are presented with a continuing stream of players who
play a free round as they move to the main game. When forced into this
sutuation, I usually take my free round in the main game and then
leave. Then of course, another player replaces me who gets yet another
free round. Of course, the more people do this, the more likely it is
that you are in game where someone is getting a free round almost every
round. The losers are the people who want to play for a long time in
the main game. Why would a casino want to penalize people who want to
play for a long time? (Although in this case they are often too stupid
to realize it, or too complacent to do anything about it, so maybe it
doesn't matter.)

To make this even worse, a player with a missed blind button in the
must-move game generally still gets to move to the main game and play
without posting. So people stop taking the blind in the must-move game
when they're about to be moved.

What a sucky system.


MtnDave

unread,
Aug 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM8/4/99
to
At Bay 101 - the missed blind button moves with the player in the Omaha8
game. They usually then wait for the big blind in the new game. So
people have pretty much given up trying this trick. (However, not all
the floorman are equally vigilant with this, so sometimes someone gets
away with it.)
Dave


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages