Point-Counterpoint

by Linda Johnson | Published: Oct 25, 2002

Mark Gregorich and I often play in the same game. Although we generally agree on most issues, we disagree on how the must-move policy should work. I asked Mark to write his thoughts on this topic for a point-counterpoint column with me.

Mark Gregorich: One rule that tends to differ from cardroom to cardroom involves the "must-move" policy. Must-move games occur when a second (or sometimes third) game of the same type and limit is started in the poker room. When a seat becomes available in the original, or "main," game, the player with the most seniority in the must-move game is required to pick up his chips and proceed to the main game. The reason for having must-move games is to protect the players in the main game, as it cannot break up before the must-move game does.

The discrepancy between cardrooms centers on the point at which the player from the must-move game is required to relocate. In stud games, this point is irrelevant, but in games such as hold'em and Omaha, players frequently are notified that it is their turn to move when they are in the middle of the blinds, or near the button. Should they be required to move immediately, or be allowed to play out the round and move when it is their turn to post the big blind? Generally, in rooms where the players must move immediately, they are entitled to free hands in the main game. If players are allowed to play to their blinds and then move, they are required to post the big blind to be dealt into the main game.

Although there are advantages and disadvantages to both options, it is clear to me that one option is more fair to the players. I believe players in the must-move game should be allowed to play out their hands until it is their big blind, and then move to the main game, where they must post a big blind to enter the game. This removes all inequalities that the other system creates, which I will discuss below. The main drawback to this option is that, particularly in Omaha, the main game will sometimes have an open seat for 10 minutes or so while the player in the must-move game plays out his round. However, I will explain why this should not bother main-game players.

In flop games such as hold'em and Omaha, players post blinds that entitle them to a round of hands. Although a player doesn't have any money in the pot when it isn't his blind, this doesn't mean the hand is "free." He has purchased these hands by posting his blinds. In fact, there is a value attached to each hand, with the blinds worth the most, followed by the button, and decreasing as the player's position worsens. This is why winning players in higher-stakes games try to avoid missing hands when they have posted the blinds, as it literally takes money out of their pockets.

How is this relevant to the must-move issue? Let's say that a seat has become available in the main game, so the players are now playing eighthanded (assuming a ninehanded game). In this cardroom, players from the must-move game move immediately and are dealt in without being required to post a big blind. If the new player enters the main game in the position behind the button, he has essentially been given a gift - a round of hands and the value that accompanies them. Poker is a zero-sum game (excluding the rake), and if a new player gains value, someone else must lose. Who, then, are the unwitting bestowers of this gift? It must be the main-game players, who have sacrificed value on their hands in order to fill their vacant seat more quickly. This policy most damages the game-starters, who, once a must-move game starts, must deal with giving an unpurchased round of hands to every new player who enters the game. Personally, I'd prefer that a seat stay open for a couple extra minutes, rather than pay someone to fill it immediately, which is exactly what the main-game players do under the "move-immediately" policy. I believe that most players who gripe about having to play shorthanded while waiting for their seats to be filled would change their opinion if they understood that filling these seats immediately costs them money.

So, waiting for the big blind and then moving to the main game is better for the players, but what about the house? Clearly, it's in the house's best interest to fill its seats as quickly as possible. However, I believe it's even more important that the house does what it can to eliminate shot-taking and angle-shooting by players. The move-immediately policy, though, provides unscrupulous players ample opportunity to take advantage of the system. If a seat becomes available in the main game in less than ideal position, a must-move player who is aware of this fact can procrastinate (by racking his chips slowly, pretending not to hear his name called for the move, or taking a detour on the way to the main game) until the blind has passed his seat. This affords him an entire round of "free" hands, purchased for him by the other players in the game, hands that he would not have received had he moved expeditiously. Inevitably, some ill will may arise over the use of these tactics, which is never a good thing in a cardroom. Simply modifying the must-move policy can eliminate a player's incentive to angle-shoot in this manner. The best rules leave little leeway for shot-taking.

Linda Johnson: OK, Mark, those are some good arguments, but now it is my turn. I believe the proper procedure for must-move games is to have the floorman go to the game when it is time for someone to move, announce that Player X now has a seat in the main game, and instruct the dealer to deal him out unless it is his button, which he would be allowed to play before leaving. Player X would then move to the main game and would have the choice of being dealt in immediately without posting or waiting until the blinds pass.

Too often I have seen a seat stay open for 10-15 minutes before being filled by a player from the second game. Many players do not like playing shorthanded, and often get angry that it takes so long to fill the seat. I have seen situations where two or three people are missing from the main game, and then a seat or two comes open, and before you know it, players are walking because they don't want to play shorthanded. I have even seen the main game break because of this, which is not supposed to happen.

Another thing that happens when players are allowed to play a full round before moving is that they do it and then decide to quit. The next player then gets to play until his blind, and it takes a long time to fill the seat in the main game. Meanwhile, main-game players are getting angry that their seat is open.

Another advantage to having a player move immediately is that it accommodates the next player. Why should he have to wait? The player who is first on the must-move list should vacate the seat.

Finally, I think players who are forced to move give up some value in the fact that they have gotten to know the players at their table from the standpoint of their playing styles and habits. They now must face new opponents, so if they get a small "gift" from the new table, so be it. Let's get on with the move!

Change of subject: The PartyPoker.com Million will air on the Travel Channel on Oct. 20 and Oct. 26 at 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. EDT. Check your local listings to verify times.

Now, let's play poker!