TippingFollow

I skimmed most of this thread. Yes, gbaji is wrong again.

I have worked in the restaurant business off and on since I was 20. More on than off. I'm currently a server/bartender at a country club. I've worked in family restaurants, night clubs and hotels. I've covered most of the bases.

NO ONE wants a big party. Ever. Period.

Even now, we book parties at the club where I work. The bigger the party, the more tip I get (18%, like everyone else is saying.) I don't even have to worry about turnover and sales because this is a club where most of the time, they've booked the party after hours anyway.

I despise these. They are way too much work, more trouble than they're worth and generally a pain in the ***. It never goes right (and usually it's the customer that's fUcking it up.)

Give me 2-4 people that eat, drink and get the hell out any day.

There is a reason why most restaurants are cold. They want you out of there as fast as they can. Especially if the restaurant is on a wait.

Turn and burn is the name of the game. Big parties take up servers, tables and time. No one wants them.

I feel like any restaurant that is popular enough to have a wait list wants tables to rotate as quickly as possible.

First off Ugly said 50% "at most". But whatever.

You're missing a key ingredient. You can work more than one table at a time. Heck. You're assuming you're working 2 tables at a time on one case, but only one on the other.

My point is that it does not take twice as much work to work a table of 8 as it does a table of 4. Thus, it takes more work to work two tables of 4 than it takes to work one table of 8. If we assume a similar ratio as that of the time issue (half again per person at a smaller table since there are more of them), we could argue that a waiter who can work 3 tables of 4 at the same time, could work 2 tables of 8 at the same time, right? Now the numbers come out even. And that's assuming somewhat equivalent rates.

It really comes down to a question of whether or not the amount of time a larger party loiters in comparison to a smaller party is greater than the ratio of tables you can work at the same time. Here's the funny thing, the longer a party "loiters" (stays at the table, but isn't adding to the bill by ordering desert or drinks), the more tables the waiter can work at the same time. The guy working the larger tables, if he staggers the start time correctly, can quite easily work the same number of tables as the guy working smaller tables with a faster turn around. That's because he's constantly working. Get the table bussed, get water. Greet customers, take orders. Bring drinks. Bring food, check table. Get check. Repeat. That's constant work.


You guys are forgetting the effort ratio and the money ratio. I'll also point out that a table that loiters, while occasionally not doing anything but taking their time, is more often than not ordering drinks and deserts, while a table you've turned over quickly is not. The guy working the larger tables is making more money per person, and therefore more tips per person.

If you want to work "hard", you work a set of smaller tables with a fast turn around. If you want to work "smart" you work a smaller number of larger tables. The work load is lighter, the total bills are much higher, and you can handle more total customers at a time.


Remember. Ultimately, it's money over time that determines the tips. There are a number of factors that make up that number, and fast turnover of tables is not necessarily the best way to make big tips. The biggest tips often do come from the large parties who are there for hours. Those are the groups who order several whole bottles of wine, and a number of appetizer plates, and desert. Sure. They might be there for 3 hours, but the total bill will be more than you'd have gotten if you'd spent your time working smaller tables. Those tend to be very standard. You can expect just a main dish for each person and nothing else. It's quick, but the money per cycle isn't that great.

And don't forget that high turnover means that a larger percentage of the table time is spent with the table being bussed.




If they're loitering (which is the only way you're actually getting the same size tip per person), it's absolutely at least that much easier. Probably moreso.

This entire conversation is stupid. You can't put a mathematical model of any form at all on something that varies as much as serving and then try to make these deductions based off of that model. No two tables are the same. Ever. We're not fucking predicting high tide.

Edited, Nov 19th 2009 11:27pm by CBD

Edited, Nov 19th 2009 11:43pm by CBD

The last thing I ever want with my dinner is math. If the service was bad enough that it warrents a complaint from me, you have either A. tried to blatantly kill me, or B. left the little poopy bit in my lobster again and thus deserve death, and in such a case I will be far more worried about dealing with the management than getting numbers right. Stick a "you pay this" on the bottom of the recipet, I pay it, and we're done. Oh, and that tip jar next to the cocoa stand where you are charging me $3.00 for a cup of heated water and some brown food coloring? Nah.

Yes, I have. It's basically what I'm majoring in.

I should have said "try to make these deductions based off of that model," and I'll go back and edit that in, but other than that this is still nonsense. Things vary drastically restaurant to restaurant and table to table and the most you can say is "We have found that over a period of Mondays at this restaurant, you are likely to make x amount of money from a party of eight and y amount from a party of four. You are likely to spend x amount of time on a party of eight and y amount of time on a party of four."

This rush to try to set up money per time involved ratio is absurd and doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of exactly why large parties are annoying as fuck to deal with. Thus the statement of "We're not fucking predicting high tide." The tide will always rise. People will always die. Economic trends will usually be predictable. The exact same party may come in every day for three months but it's going to be a completely different experience every single time and any server who takes them because they've made more money for their time the previous three nights is a total moron.

I can't write tonight.

Edited, Nov 19th 2009 11:42pm by CBD

Why is it you will take Ugly's experience as fact but you won't take mine? But fine, have it your way.

Assume a 4 table section. Assume parties of 8 take 50% longer (1.5x as long) X= average tip per person.

With a big party
2 tables for party of 8: 8X/1.5 = 5.33X/unit time
1 table of party of 4: 4X/1 = 4X/unit time
1 table of party of 4: 4X/1 = 4X/unit time
total: 13.33X/unit time

With all smaller parties
1 table of party of 4: 4X/1 = 4X/unit time
1 table of party of 4: 4X/1 = 4X/unit time
1 table of party of 4: 4X/1 = 4X/unit time
1 table of party of 4: 4X/1 = 4X/unit time
Total: 16X/unit time.


smaller parties still win.

No, I soil others. They had it coming.

Yes. Yes it is. Good job! You understand the absolute basics behind everything. The problem is that everyone is rushing to take these basics and make them say more than they mean.



Not sure why you're replying to my point by echoing my point.

None of the servers I knew would take, as an example, a table of four that was hell to serve - even though they consistently tipped 25% instead of the average 15%. The reaction was constantly "Oh fuck. Who has them? Oh, it's not me, thank God. At least the other server will get get a nice tip."

There's a hell of a lot more that goes into "Would you have a rather have two large tables or several smaller ones?" than analyzing money earned vs. time spent. If you want to talk about those that's fine and they mean something but a conversation implying they're the only two important factors is ridiculous.

EDIT: Looking at this again, you're also assuming "more money for their time" somehow means "good tip" which also isn't necessarily true.


Edited, Nov 20th 2009 12:08am by CBD

Yeah, I now realize that I completely ****** up the point I was trying to make in that post. My apologies.



Which is why I called the conversation stupid. Simplistic might be a better word here. It's missing the forest for a tree. Not trees. Just the one tree.

For some reason I now have the "Spartans, what is your profession?" scene from 300 replaying over an over in my head.

And no, it was not just as planned.