This situation has come up a few times now at my local cardroom, and no one seems to agree on how to handle it. The room also currently doesn't have a full time manager, and the floor people are hesitant to make a concrete ruling.
The game I play has been starting earlier and earlier, as players have had to arrive early to get a seat. This has caused frustration among the players, as the people that didn't get a seat now have to wait, often for hours until a seat opens, or a must move starts. The must moves are often shorthanded, which further frustrates these players. There are often a few action players on the list that people want to play with, so there is an incentive to get them in the game.
We play spread limit, with blinds of 5/5, and a $100 max bet. I would say about 60% of hands are straddled. Pots often get pretty big, so adding the straddle doesn't affect the final pot size all that much, but in a bad game, it can be useful. Generally though, there isn't much of a difference between the 5/5 game, and the 5/5/10 mandatory straddle game.
The first incident was on one of the days that the 5/5 was running, and several people on the waiting list decided to ask the floor to start a 5/5/10 mandatory straddle game, in the hopes that it would start up, and people from the 5/5 would come over, while breaking the 5/5. The 5/5 players were not asked if they wanted to play the 5/5/10. The table opened, and the players that were quickest moved their chips over, leaving the remaining 5/5 players without a game. They weren't asked if they wanted a seat at the new game, or given the option to change their game to 5/5/10, with the new game being a must move. The argument on one side was that it was a blatant attempt of the people on the waiting list to cut the line, and get a hand picked lineup, as a few of the 5/5 players were given a heads up that the new table would be opening, while other players had no idea. The argument on the other side was that it was good for everyone if the action players that were waiting to get in the game now had seats, and that players should be allowed to play with people they wanted to play with, and making them play with nits/pros isn't fair.
The second incident was today. The game, which is now always 5/5/10 was running, and several people from the first incident were on the waiting list again. They decided to start a 10/20 game, and asked an inexperienced floor person to start the game. This particular floor person isn't normally making rulings, and is basically a cashier and brush. The regular floor wasn't there. This individual doesn't really understand the nuances of the different games, and was persuaded by the players that a 10/20 game with a $100 max best was different than the current 5/5/10 $100 max bet game, so the game opened, and sure enough, several players from the 5/5/10 joined it, leaving the 5/5/10 short. There was on open seat for a while at the 10/20, but we all thought it was unfair to break our game, which had several regulars that showed up early to get a seat, so we had an unspoken agreement that none of us would go to the new game, and we'd try to keep the 5/5/10 going, despite the other game being better. We felt that it was unfair to people in the 5/5/10, that there game would be broken, so we did what we thought was the right thing for the long term health of the game, by staying put. We were not given the option to change our game to the 10/20 main game with the new game being a must move, with the reasoning that the games were different. The first game has $20 in blinds, and the new game has $30, but since it's spread limit, they play very similarly. Several of the players in the 5/5/10 were regulars and were very pissed off by what happened.
How should the poker room handle this? Should this be viewed as a blatant attempt by people on the waiting list to cut the line, or should the poker take the stance that getting the action players in the game is worth it, and the players should have the freedom to start new games, even if an existing, very similar game, will probably break? If you're a player, do you prioritize the long term health of the game, or do you do what's better in the moment? It was correctly pointed out that there was a seat open in the 10/20 for at least 30 minutes. Any one of us could have grabbed it. I felt that staying in the current game was the right thing to do, and that leaving and breaking the game was unfair to the regulars that would now be without a seat.