Balancing Tables - Clarification

[K-Lo]

Just taking a poll here to see if we all agree:

First, table with 8 seats.  Seat 1 is vacant.  Seat 6 has just become vacant, the player having busted out on the previous hand, leaving 6 players at the table.  The button is in seat 5, and seat 7 has posted a Big Blind, with no blind in seat 6.  In summary, the table looks as follows:

Seat 1 (vacant)
Seat 2 (occupied)
Seat 3 (occupied)
Seat 4 (occupied)
Seat 5 (occupied - Button)
Seat 6 (vacant - 'dead' sb)
Seat 7 (occupied - BB)
Seat 8 (occupied)

The hand is played out and the player in seat 7 is eliminated, leaving seats 1, 6, & 7 vacant.  The button is moved into seat 6.  Dealer is washing the deck, and you, the TD, arrive with a player from another table in order to balance tables.

Question 1:  Where are you going to seat the new player, and which player(s) will post a blind?

Question 2:  (see post #4 below)

[ew2484]

I could be mistaken, but i believe the player will take seat 7 and post 1 BB for that hand. Next hand button will not move, and seats 7/8 and will take small/big blind

[Nick C]

Using the dead button rule the new player would be seated in seat #1.

    Seat 6 dead button
    Seat 7 dead SB
    Seat 8 BB

[K-Lo]

Using the dead button rule the new player would be seated in seat #1.

    Seat 6 dead button
    Seat 7 dead SB
    Seat 8 BB

And a follow-up question:

Question 2:  Same situation as original question, except seat 1 is already occupied, and only seats 6 & 7 are vacant, with button already moved into seat 6.  Where are you going to seat the new player, and which player(s) will post a blind (and if applicable, is new player dealt in or not)?

[Brian Vickers]

And a follow-up question:

Question 2:  Same situation as original question, except seat 1 is already occupied, and only seats 6 & 7 are vacant, with button already moved into seat 6.  Where are you going to seat the new player, and which player(s) will post a blind (and if applicable, is new player dealt in or not)?

The "classic" way of doing it would be in your first example to have the new player in seat 1 as Nick as stated.  In your 2nd example it would be to have the new player enter in seat 6 on the dead button spot and be dealt in right away.

However, I believe in both examples I would (and this is probably not the most mainstream approach) seat the new player in seat 7 as the big blind only, then the following hand I would keep the button where it was, with seat 7 being the sb and seat 8 being the bb. 
I would consider this the more "progressive" way of doing it (as it seems to be trending this way and is becoming more acceptable). 

[Nick C]

I would have put the new player on the button (seat 6) and dealt him out one hand...but honestly I like Brian's suggestion.

[K-Lo]

Hi Nick and Brian:

Thanks for your input.  Here are my comments:

I usually balance the tables as Nick has suggested - in the first example, placing the new player in seat #1, and in the second example, placing the new player on the button and having him sit out one hand (following RROP that a player moving into the button must wait for button to pass). 

I think you will agree that the rules do support the above method.  When the button moves into seat 6 and seat 8 is due to take the big blind next, seat 7 is due to take the small blind.  The rules explicitly set out that the new player enters into the worst position "which is never the small blind" - if we were to allow a player to sit in seat 7 and post a big blind, despite the button being in neighbouring seat 8, I don't think this part of the rule would ever have any meaning because you could always move an incoming player into what would otherwise be the small blind's position and having him post a single big (which is effectively the alternative way Brian mentioned).  All I am saying here is that the rules on balancing when taken as a whole seem, at least to me, to support the above "classic" way of balancing because it makes specific mention to the worst position never being the small blind.

That being said, I agree that the "progressive" way is indeed gaining traction, and if it weren't for the fact that the TDA rule mentions "never the small blind" in passing, this alternative way of balancing would appear to make complete sense because it does force the incoming player to post a Big Blind as soon as possible, and it is permissible to post a single big blind.

My original reason for bringing up this balancing scenario is this - I started trying Brian's "progressive" way (i.e. in both situations, seat the new player in seat 7 as BB only with button in seat 6, and then on next hand, new player is SB and seat 8 is BB with button remaining in seat 6) and thought it made complete sense, until I realized that in two particular scenarios that I mentioned where seat 6 is vacant, the player in seat 5 would effectively be acting last as the button not once, not twice, but three times!  When the button was in seat 5, he was the button so he acted last.  When the button moved to seat 6 for the next hand (which would be empty since you've seated the new player in seat 7), seat 5 will act last again.  And then when the button stays in the same position on the next hand, seat 5 will act last yet again!  Therefore, in order to get the new player to post BB right away, we have given one player the advantage over the entire table, allowing him to effectively be the button three hands in a row.  I'm not sure this is a completely fair trade-off.

So now I'm leaning towards going back to the "classic" way...  Any thoughts?

[Nick C]

K-Lo,
If you want my two cents; you will always have problems whenever multiple players are eliminated or moved with any existing system. There are advantages and disadvantages to the moving button and the dead button rules. Tournament poker really creates the problems because we don't want players to miss any hands. Why not just force the moved player to post one BB from the SB or the button if that's where he must go? There would be two BB's, so what's the big deal?

[diz475]

you put the player in the dead small blind spot (seat 7), he posts the bb the button stays in seat 6 for the next hand and the new player is now the sb.
as far as the player in seat 5 being the last to act two hands its the same as if it was a dead button anyway,
     you can do this anytime the bb went bust the hand before you seat the new player



8:   Balancing Tables

A: In flop and mixed games when balancing tables, the player who will be big blind next will bebi moved to the worst position, including taking a single big blind when available, even if that means the seat will have the big blind twice. Worst position is never the small blind. In stud-only events, players will be moved by position (the last seat to open up at the short table is the seat to be filled). The table from which a player is moved will be as specified by a predetermined procedure. Play will halt on any table that is 3 or more players short

[K-Lo]

you put the player in the dead small blind spot (seat 7), he posts the bb the button stays in seat 6 for the next hand and the new player is now the sb.
as far as the player in seat 5 being the last to act two hands its the same as if it was a dead button anyway,
     you can do this anytime the bb went bust the hand before you seat the new player

Actually, seat 5 would be last to act for three hands in the example with the new player being introduced into seat 7, not just two.  Do you agree that it might be unfair?

[diz475]

if you leave seat 7 open it will be a dead button anyway so seat 5 gets last action 3 times both ways, thats why you put the new player in the worst spot on the game ( seat 7) even it the 1 seat is open

[K-Lo]

This is true for the first scenario, but not for the second where the alternative is to put the player on the button.

I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense to put the player in seat 7 - it does seem to catching on and it is consistent with the rule saying that the new player should be put into the worst position.  However, the same rule also says that "Worst position is never the small blind".  What's the point of having that clarification in the rule if you can always seat a player adjacent to the button and thus there is never a "small blind" position to worry about any more?  (This is probably a subtle point about the rule language, which I admit is perhaps not worth debating).

[diz475]

but the button cant be the worst position
and a doesent a player assume the rights and responsibilities of the position that he is seated in

[JasperToo]

but the button cant be the worst position
and a doesent a player assume the rights and responsibilities of the position that he is seated in

The button is the worst seat AVAILABLE for that table at that time.  And the part about assuming the rights and responsibilities is not in this rule, it is in the rule concerning breaking tables not just balancing them.

I agree with seating the player in seat #1 in the first scenario and placing him in seat #6 on the button for the second and having him wait one hand.

Yes, K-lo, I agree there are times that seat #5 would have the advantage far more than anyone deserves and i believe you should keep the button moving.  So I don't think the "progressive" way is a good one.  I think the idea behind it is to make that player that has moved post his blind as soon as possible.  But let's not forget, that poor shmuck just got pulled from his familiar table to an unfamiliar one so if he happens to be lucky enough to sit down on the button and wait for a hand play a round then good for him.  It won't happen that often...

[diz475]

Situation 1, seat 7 is the correct based on the even if the same seat has the big blind twice.

If you use seat 1 you have the same advantage for seat 5 you're talking about.

As far as the rights and responsibilities of the seat not being in the balancing tables rule is because you would never have to seat a player on the button or in the small blind if you use the balancing rule correctly

So situation 2 seat 7 is correct

And yes seat 5 gets an advantage but if the situation was at 2 tables and you couldn't balance then he gets last action 3 times