[Pacome]

Hi guys,
I'm a new poker addicted and I just hosted my first home game in Switzerland (it was a great success). Considering that as long as 10 players are at the table the game is kinda defensive and slow we thought about starting with 2 tables each consisting of 5 players. This structure would allow to play earlier aggressively and would also allow to "read" the players better. The final table would consist of the last 3 players of the two tables.
Ok my English is bad nevertheless I hope you can follow my thoughts.

My question now: What do you think about that? What are the disadvantages, what the advantages of such a procedure?

Best regards for your assistance!
Your Pacome

[Wedge Rock]

Your English is much better than you think.

I don't like starting out five handed... it changes the game quite a bit and forces you to start playing hands you wouldn't normally play. More luck, less skill, IMHO. I'd rather start 10 handed and play patiently.

Also, I have no problem making the final table the last six people, but I wouldn't do it as the final 3 from each table... I would just consolidate when you get to 6 people... what if one table gets 3-handed in an hour and the other table plays five-handed for 2 hours before losing one player and then its another hour before they get down to 3 people? What are you going to do, have Table 1 wait for two hours?

[Matthew]

The game is definatly different 10 handed vs 5 handed or less. I would play one 10 player table and use the other table for the cash game as players bust out of the tournament. If you're trying to inmprove your game the progression from a full table to heads up is the way to go. If you want to through chips around have looser play - keep them split.

the other thing you run into is - what is 2 players go out from the same table - do you move one from the table with 5 to the table with 3 to make it 4 and 4?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Yeah, your English is a lot better than many native speakers I've run into, so no need at all to apologize.

There's nothing wrong with your format, it plays like a 2 table shorthanded game rather than a standard 10 person sit n go is all. But like the others said, 2 tables of 5 makes for a very different game than a full table. It will generally be much looser and with more action. It really comes down to what your players like and it seems like they like 2 tables of 5.

As far as your final table, if you want it to be a final table of 6, that's fine, but it shouldn't just be the 3 remaining from the original tables. It may work out to be that way sometimes, but the most common way of doing it is to just take the final 6 that are left. Here's kind of an example. Let's say you lose 2 guys from table 1, so you've got a table of 3 players and a table of 5. Instead of stopping play at table 1 waiting for table 2 to catchup, you just move a player from table 2 to table 1 so that you have 4 and 4. Now when the next person goes out, you've got 4 and 3. Finally, the next one out takes you down to 6 total and you recombine for your final table.

[ky70]

This is a great idea considering that you thought the game was too defensive and slow with a full table of 10. What I also like about this game is the potential change in play due to going from 5 players to 4 players and then back up to 6 players (after 2 guys are eliminated from each table and the game is combined).

As long as you understand that play will be faster with 2 short tables, I think this could work well for your situation.

[rakdesign]

I owuld not break a starting table down to less than 7...7-9 players is probably the best starting number...less is too aggressive and I notice that the larger B&M tourneys start out 9 to a table ...

[Bhudio]

9-10 players is considered a "full" table and 6-7 is considered "short handed" These can be two completely different types of games, in terms of the strategies that must be used. If I recall correctly, the WSOP has a $5000 "short handed" tourney that only allows six at a table verses the main event which hold a "full" table of ten. Seating management and the type of game you want to play should help decide which type of game you want to play. Personally, I would prefer the "full" table due to the fact that most of the math out there to help determine many of the odds are printed with ten possible starting hand at the beginning of the round. Plus the fact that the blinds won't come around as often and will allow you to play a decisive game rather than one that almost requires an all-in due to the rate of the blinds. But thats just me....play on.

[coyote]

Originally Posted by Bhudio

Personally, I would prefer the "full" table due to the fact that most of the math out there to help determine many of the odds are printed with ten possible starting hand at the beginning of the round.

Not sure what math you're referring to? Are you talking about M, Q and hand distribution calcs?

[Captn_All_In]

Well from my personal hostnig experiences I would say keep this one a table of 10. Now if you had 12 show up, I would split them to 2 tables of 6.

The best thing to do is invite 14 people and start with 2 tables of 7 and keep them balanced until you get down to 8 players, then merge the tables. And use the now empty table to start a cash game.

My 2 bits..

Captn

[Pacome]

Guys, that's excactly what I wanted a whole bunch of different opinions and advices! Cool! Ok I will discuss this with my friends but I like a looser game it's more fun than a "I hold Ace King ok I raise" game ^^ But for sure I will handle the table seating as you suggested, 3 - 5 --> player move --> 4 -4 table, as soon 6 players left: final table. If a players has to move from the 5 player table to the 3 player table how is the player determined who has to go? Most chips?