# The problem with 6-handed tables occurs in late levels of MTT

The problem with 6-handed tables occurs in late levels of MTT. The balance algorithm enforces that no table has 2 players more than any other table. When a 6-handed MTT reaches down for example 13 players in late levels, it will arrange 3 tables with 4+4+5 players. Therefore, you’ll get blinded like crazy on a 4-handed table as long as 1 player will not be eliminated to reach down 12 players, arranged on 2 tables with 6+6 players.

Same problem will occur when down to 8 players arranged on 2 tables with 4+4 players, except that the elimination of next player will make things even worse with 7 players arranged on 2 tables with 4+3 players. You’ll need to wait for the elimination of another player to get a 6-handed table again, the final table.

Maybe a relaxation of the number of seats should apply for these unfavorable number configurations. When the balance algorithm yields 4- or 3-handed tables, it could exceptionally increase the number of seats per table up to 7, 8 or even 9, until no table is 4- or 3-handed.

Example, for a 6-handed MTT at late stages:
13 players: default balance yields 4+4+5. Allowing 7 seats relaxes things to 6+7.
12 players: default balance yields 6+6. Optimal.
11 players: default balance yields 6+5. Optimal.
10 players: default balance yields 5+5. Optimal.
9 players: default balance yields 4+5. Allowing 9 seats relaxes things to single table 9-handed.
This avoids the deadly bottlleneck at 8 players (4+4) and 7 players (3+4) that kills everybody with crapshoot blinds. Note: This conversation was created from a reply on: put on more 9 people tables instead of a lot of 6.

You right about this, one of the problem with this is create 7 seated room in a 6 seated game would be difficult and would cause problems. I think all “would be solution” give some advantage or disadvantage to players. I don’t think is possible to even a blinds to equally split between players. Any other idea regarding this?