.25/.50 vs 1/2 at a home game (1 Viewer)

Little bit of a flex there huh pro? :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:

Funny thing is that when I reloaded the player next to me said she so desperately wanted to tell the player that she knew I was looking to stack to take his profit and go home! But she knows that is not her place to do, especially as the player is risking money he can afford to lose. He is a good hold’em cash/tournament player, but PLO and split pot games are not his strength at all!

and to his credit he didn’t whine at all when he got stacked. He reloaded and lost that too! :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:
 
That literally doesn't matter in the slightest. You could just reload.
I think he means for tournaments, where having more chips is an advantage cause it allows you to survive more all in situations, and you are still in the tourney even if you lose an all in to a short stack.
 
I understand that. I think we drifted away from the point that allowing uncapped rebuys creates an advantage.
Except it doesn't. If 8 people are in for 100bb, and one person is in for 2000bb, the 2000bb player has no inherent advantage. He may have 2000bb, but he effectively only has 100bb in play.

The ONLY time it matters is covering weaker players if you think you are better. But again, your stack is effectively only as big as their's.

Given equal skill level, stack size is irrelevant. The advantage isn't the stack size, it's the skill level.
 
I encourage everyone to play at a stake where you can play comfortably with at least 200bb starting stack, it's way more fun.
We play $0.50/0.50nl and everyone buys in for $100 which gives a lot of room to call pre flop and allows a lot of post flop play.
If everyone bought in for only $50, there will be many hands that are $10-15 preflop(full ring, live games play a lot higher than online), and with a few callers, you're only left with a pot sized bet.
 
Being able to buy in and cover everyone at the table is an advantage. It gives you the power to bust them in any hand and any time, whereas if you had to buy in for the starting amount (or 50% of biggest stack), you don't have that advantage. Also, bigger stacks allows for more "play" compared to smaller stacks where set mining, for example, isn't as profitable. Again, I will buy in for 10x everyone at the table if I'm allowed (and can afford it depending on stacks obviously). It is definitely an advantage.

EDIT: Just to provide a simple example. Max buy-in is $100 at this table and I just busted you. I'm sitting with $500 in front of me and you rebuy for the max of $100. Very next hand, you end up shoving on me for a full $100 on the river. Now, can you see how this decision would be greatly influenced if you were able to buy in for up to biggest stack and now instead of a $100 shove, I'm facing a $500 shove? Clearly, this is helping the rebuy player and taking the advantage away from the big stack, for example. Like already mentioned, it also benefits the deepest pockets.
 
Last edited:
And online poker shows would be super boring if everyone was limited to buying in 100bb. Players at the highest stakes aren't complaining
 
And online poker shows would be super boring if everyone was limited to buying in 100bb. Players at the highest stakes aren't complaining
I don't know if you can compare high stakes television poker to Bob's home game with friends. Completely different scenario. However, you are correct. It is better for TV to have tons of money on the table, and the best players will buy-in to cover the table. I've seen shows with Ivey and Antonius just keep topping up until they have everyone covered. Now why would they do that? Hmmm, maybe because it's to their advantage perhaps?
 
Being able to buy in and cover everyone at the table is an advantage. It gives you the power to bust them in any hand and any time, whereas if you had to buy in for the starting amount (or 50% of biggest stack), you don't have that advantage. Also, bigger stacks allows for more "play" compared to smaller stacks where set mining, for example, isn't as profitable. Again, I will buy in for 10x everyone at the table if I'm allowed (and can afford it depending on stacks obviously). It is definitely an advantage.

EDIT: Just to provide a simple example. Max buy-in is $100 at this table and I just busted you. I'm sitting with $500 in front of me and you rebuy for the max of $100. Very next hand, you end up shoving on me for a full $100 on the river. Now, can you see how this decision would be greatly influenced if you were able to buy in for up to biggest stack and now instead of a $100 shove, I'm facing a $500 shove? Clearly, this is helping the rebuy player and taking the advantage away from the big stack, for example. Like already mentioned, it also benefits the deepest pockets.
Your example is ridiculous because if the player was able to buy in for 500, they wouldn't be playing the hand the same way and jamming 500 on the river as they would if they had 100.

As a good player, being and to buy in deep is an advantage because you can bust larger stacked weaker players. But stack size, more specifically effective stack size, dictates a lot about how hands should be played.

If there is a cap on the buy in, all that does is affect how you can play hands. And just handicaps better players' win rates against weaker players that have run up a stack.

It's constantly baffling to me how many people think having a giant stack in a cash game gives any advantage other than being able to play larger pots against other deep stacked players. Going bust in a cash game means nothing since you can always just reload.
 
They understand having a large stack gives an advantage, but won't allow losing players to have a chance to get even by matching the largest stack. So the winners will more likely stay winners and the losers will more likely stay losing cause they have to win double the number of hands to get even and the large stacks are less likely to have all their chips at risk in one hand. It's like not being allowed to bet $25 on a hand of blackjack after losing 4x$5 hands in a row
 
Your example is ridiculous because if the player was able to buy in for 500, they wouldn't be playing the hand the same way and jamming 500 on the river as they would if they had 100.
How can you say this? Depending on the cards and the way the hand is played, it's definitely possible the two players could get all the money in. Why does it matter if it's $100 effective or $500 effective? The cards matter if the player is shoving all in or not. So you are saying if I have $500 get dealt AA and you with $500 get dealt KK, there's no way all the money isn't going all in ever? What if flop comes AKK? No one going to end up shoving because stacks are too deep? Clearly, it's possible to get all the money in no matter the amount in the stacks depending on the cards dealt, and if rebuy guy gets to rebuy to max, that's going to effect the decision of the big stack (since he's not technically the big stack then). If he was up against only $100 effective, it is easier for him to make that decision obviously.
As a good player, being and to buy in deep is an advantage because you can bust larger stacked weaker players. But stack size, more specifically effective stack size, dictates a lot about how hands should be played.
? So you agree with me? Having a deeper stack is an advantage. I'm not understanding you I guess.
If there is a cap on the buy in, all that does is affect how you can play hands. And just handicaps better players' win rates against weaker players that have run up a stack.

It's constantly baffling to me how many people think having a giant stack in a cash game gives any advantage other than being able to play larger pots against other deep stacked players. Going bust in a cash game means nothing since you can always just reload.
See bold. That is one advantage, yes. There are also others but, like you have now stated, being able to cover the table with a deeper stack has its advantages. Seems like you are agreeing with me...but you aren't for some reason, so I'm confused.
 
And if my AA vs KK example doesn't work for you (it was just to prove that all the money could go all in no matter what stack sizes were), consider the following: $500 stack flops the nut flush draw and $100 stack flops top two pair. Or it could be set over set for another example. This could also see all the money going in easily. However, $500 stack guy could be calling the $100 push much easier than a $500 push if player was allowed to rebuy to biggest stack. Does this still not show you how allowing rebuys to the biggest stack can change or influence the game differently? It clearly takes away the larger stack's clear advantage.
 
Last edited:
See bold. That is one advantage, yes. There are also others but, like you have now stated, being able to cover the table with a deeper stack has its advantages. Seems like you are agreeing with me...but you aren't for some reason, so I'm confused.
Covering the table with a deep stack is a disadvantage if you're a worse player. It lets you lose money faster.

Larger stacks don't confer advantages, they amplify the advantage or disadvantage that the player already has due to his relative skill.

Consider a good player with $500 facing a bad player with $50; now consider a bad player with $500 facing a good player with $50. The hand plays out the same in both cases because the effective stacks are the same in both cases. If you give the shorter-stacked player another $400 to bring him even with the bigger stack, regardless of whether it was the good player or the bad player that got the boost, you've made the good player better off and the bad player worse off because the good player will end up with more of the bad player's money, faster.
 
Covering the table with a deep stack is a disadvantage if you're a worse player. It lets you lose money faster.

Larger stacks don't confer advantages, they amplify the advantage or disadvantage that the player already has due to his relative skill.

Consider a good player with $500 facing a bad player with $50; now consider a bad player with $500 facing a good player with $50. The hand plays out the same in both cases because the effective stacks are the same in both cases. If you give the shorter-stacked player another $400 to bring him even with the bigger stack, regardless of whether it was the good player or the bad player that got the boost, you've made the good player better off and the bad player worse off because the good player will end up with more of the bad player's money, faster.
I get what you're saying but consider a big stack bad player vs a small stack bad player? Who has the advantage?
 
One of my regs who is a good player has suggested I change the stakes of my home game from .25/.50 to 1/2 based on how it plays. His argument is that raises get no respect, and people are playing any 2 cards to the flop because it's only a few bucks.

It might help to know a little bit more about the betting patterns/dynamics here.

What is a standard preflop open size in your game? $1.50 (3x)? $2 (4x)? $3 (6x)?

How many callers does a standard open typically get?

Next: If you have a hand you want to isolate with, how big do you have to go?

Say you have AQo or JJ in the cutoff. Two people have already limped.

You’d like to get at least the button to fold, so you have position on any callers. If you see a flop, you probably prefer it to be heads-up. Just taking down the 3.5BB already in the pot is not such a bad outcome either.

Presumably there is a bet size at .25/.50 which doesn’t result in everyone (the button, both blinds and both limpers) flatting. How big is that in your game—$5 (10x)? $7.50 (15x)? $10 (20x)? Even more?

I ask these questions because I think the answers may help to tease out what your game’s “real” stakes are.
 
Last edited:
(Note: A game where almost everyone else but you is calling when you raise 10x pre with high quality hands will still be profitable in the long run—if they’re calling with almost the entire deck. But the short-term variance is going to be wild, and annoying at times.)
 
I get what you're saying but consider a big stack bad player vs a small stack bad player? Who has the advantage?
Against each other? Neither one, because they have the same effective stack size.

The smaller stack is at greater risk of losing all his chips... but that doesn't matter, because it's a cash game and there are no consequences to getting felted. If Small Stack loses, he loses $X and is felted. If Big Stack loses, he loses $X and is not felted. But in either case, they both stand to lose $X and nothing else because being felted is of no special significance.
 
Daniel Negreanu bought in $1,000,000 to cover everyone and to have an advantage over everyone in season 1 of High Stakes Poker
It worked out good him :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:
 
Against each other? Neither one, because they have the same effective stack size.

The smaller stack is at greater risk of losing all his chips... but that doesn't matter, because it's a cash game and there are no consequences to getting felted. If Small Stack loses, he loses $X and is felted. If Big Stack loses, he loses $X and is not felted. But in either case, they both stand to lose $X and nothing else because being felted is of no special significance.
EDIT: Forget it. I must be wrong.
 
It might help to know a little bit more about the betting patterns/dynamics here.

What is a standard preflop open size in your game? $1.50 (3x)? $2 (4x)? $3 (6x)?

How many callers does a standard open typically get?

Next: If you have a hand you want to isolate with, how big do you have to go?

Say you have AQo or JJ in the cutoff. Two people have already limped.

You’d like to get at least the button to fold, so you have position on any callers. If you see a flop, you probably prefer it to be heads-up. Just taking down the 3.5BB already in the pot is not such a bad outcome either.

Presumably there is a bet size at .25/.50 which doesn’t result in everyone (the button, both blinds and both limpers) flatting. How big is that in your game—$5 (10x)? $7.50 (15x)? $10 (20x)? Even more?

I ask these questions because I think the answers may help to show what your game’s “real” stakes are.
These are the right questions.

Standard open size is $2-5 depending on the player and what their cards are (higher opens are either low pocket pairs or aces/kings and lower opens tend to be suited connectors or double broadway).

It's usually a call fest. There are only 2 players that 3 bet preflop with any regularity, and even after a 3 bet there are still usually multiple callers unless the sizing jumps into the $20 range. Even then, there will be 3 players in that pot (the same 3 players that fold preflop 10% or less). Rarely will most players be able to isolate because of these 3 players.

There have been a few occasions now where one of these 3 players has cashed out for over $1200 and there was more than casual grumbling about how the game played. The last hand of the last game I hosted was not a fun one. There was a $15 open from the player who originally suggested raising the stakes. He had busted and came back later with a $500 buy in and was only opening for $15 or more (playing like he would 1/3). There were 4 callers. He continued on the K/9/2 rainbow flop, 4 callers. Turn is a 3, checks around. River is a 3, cut off bets $50, button folds, SB folds, BB raises to $125, UTG(preflop raiser) calls, cut off jams, sb snap calls, utg shows a king, tanks, then disgustedly mucks. Sb flips 3/5 off for trips, cut off flips 2/3 off for a full house. Sb angrily shoves her stack across the table and utg says some things I wont repeat.

I will admit it's been very frustrating for me as well, when I raise/3 bet a premium hand, flop top pair, barrel every street with a clean run out and villain flips over 8/2 off for a rivered 2 pair, or similar low unsuited hands for random backdoor straights.

As you said, the variance is wild, and for me makes the game not fun. I play poker because I like the skill aspect, but playing with these players is more often straight gambling, which is much less fun for me.

I'm not sure what to do to maintain a healthy game at this point with the players I have. I've been hosting less frequently and going to a game that's a bit of a drive for me but doesn't have any drama. There are likely some more players in my area that would play 25c/50c if it actually played at those stakes but they are inconsistent, whereas the big gamblers come everytime I host but are clearly playing larger than the blinds suggest.
 
Covering the table with a deep stack is a disadvantage if you're a worse player. It lets you lose money faster.

Larger stacks don't confer advantages, they amplify the advantage or disadvantage that the player already has due to his relative skill.

Consider a good player with $500 facing a bad player with $50; now consider a bad player with $500 facing a good player with $50. The hand plays out the same in both cases because the effective stacks are the same in both cases. If you give the shorter-stacked player another $400 to bring him even with the bigger stack, regardless of whether it was the good player or the bad player that got the boost, you've made the good player better off and the bad player worse off because the good player will end up with more of the bad player's money, faster.
I take it back. I have to say one more thing. Dude, you are literally stating that it is an advantage for good players in your opinion. Therefore, there is clearly some sort of advantage to having a big stack. Maybe not for everyone according to you, but you admit there is one.
 
I take it back. I have to say one more thing. Dude, you are literally stating that it is an advantage for good players in your opinion. Therefore, there is clearly some sort of advantage to having a big stack. Maybe not for everyone according to you, but you admit there is one.
I’m think what he’s trying to point out is that stack size only magnifies what’s already there and skill level is the most contributing factor. Therefore a bad player with a large stack is at a bigger disadvantage and a solid player with a larger stack is at a bigger advantage overall.

With that being said, for any given hand in a cash game the only stack size that matters is relative stack size. Your ability to make decisions should not factor in whether or not you can rebuy or afford to lose a given hand.

Just my 2 cents.
 
For me having a big stack is about convenience. I want to cover the other players (as much as possible given the structure) and don't want to be constantly adding on to do so.
 
I’m think what he’s trying to point out is that stack size only magnifies what’s already there and skill level is the most contributing factor. Therefore a bad player with a large stack is at a bigger disadvantage and a solid player with a larger stack is at a bigger advantage overall.
Right, but also - the better player isn't gaining any advantage (isn't increasing his inherent advantage) by having a bigger stack than his opponent. He only increases his advantage if both he and his weaker opponent have bigger stacks. His advantage doesn't come from his stack size, it comes from having more money in play, and you can only have more money in play if both players have more money in their stacks. You can't win what the other guy doesn't have.
 
Right, but also - the better player isn't gaining any advantage (isn't increasing his inherent advantage) by having a bigger stack than his opponent. He only increases his advantage if both he and his weaker opponent have bigger stacks. His advantage doesn't come from his stack size, it comes from having more money in play, and you can only have more money in play if both players have more money in their stacks. You can't win what the other guy doesn't have.
Yes, you are describing the ideal scenario in which this big stack advantage is best "taken advantage of". Therefore, it necessarily follows, according to your example, that there is an advantage of being able to rebuy to have the biggest stack at the table.

Maybe it depends, according to you, on if they are good players and if bad players also have big stacks, but you are still literally providing an example of the advantage of being able to rebuy up to the big stack. Hence why I only do rebuys up to 50% big stack in my games.
 
Yes, you are describing the ideal scenario in which this big stack advantage is best "taken advantage of". Therefore, it necessarily follows, according to your example, that there is an advantage of being able to rebuy to have the biggest stack at the table.

Maybe it depends, according to you, on if they are good players and if bad players also have big stacks, but you are still literally providing an example of the advantage of being able to rebuy up to the big stack. Hence why I only do rebuys up to 50% big stack in my games.
I think I get what you're saying, but I don't think that's a good way to think about the how-big-can-we-rebuy question. Here's an example that maybe will help explain why:

Let's say Bob is bad and Gordon is great at poker. They start with 100bb. Gordon gets Bob all in while Bob is way behind in the hand and now Gordon has 200bb to Bob's zilch.

Bob wants to rebuy to match the big stack so he can win his money back. But the group thinks "No way, that's not fair, Gordon earned his big stack fair and square. Bob should have to rebuy at the normal max buyin and work his way up from there. Gotta be fair to Gordon, after all."

Meanwhile Gordon is super-annoyed at the group. He doesn't want everyone protecting his precious big stack from unearned competition. He wants Bob to buy in for as much money as Bob has in his wallet because he can't win what Bob doesn't put on the table. By preventing Bob from buying in big, you're not preventing Bob from getting an unearned advantage, you're preventing Gordon from getting the advantage he worked so hard to get! If Bob doesn't buy in big, Gordon doesn't have an advantage from having a big stack.

You don't get an advantage from having a big stack. You get an advantage by other, weaker players having at least as big a stack as you do, so that you can take it away from them.
 
Yes, you are describing the ideal scenario in which this big stack advantage is best "taken advantage of". Therefore, it necessarily follows, according to your example, that there is an advantage of being able to rebuy to have the biggest stack at the table.

Maybe it depends, according to you, on if they are good players and if bad players also have big stacks, but you are still literally providing an example of the advantage of being able to rebuy up to the big stack. Hence why I only do rebuys up to 50% big stack in my games.
The issue is that the way you explain it, it seems that you think that having a big stack itself is an inherent advantage regardless of skill. And that just isn't true since the biggest stack can't use anymore of their stack than the smallest stack in the hand.

Neither I nor @CrazyEddie have disagreed that there is an advantage to having a big stack. It's just that the advantage doesn't come from the stack itself if skill is completely equal. There is no INHERENT advantage is all I've tried to convey. Any extra chips in your big stack in excess of the smallest stack involved in a given hand (barring side pots) are irrelevant. So having them confers no advantage in any given hand.

If all I want to play with is say 200bb, I don't care if someone or even everyone else at the table has 1000bb. When they are in a hand with me, they only have 200bb. Those extra chips might as well not be there. Those big stacks don't have any advantage over me if all in trying to do is play good poker in relation to my stack size.

Anyway... I guess we must just not be getting what they other is saying. From what I've seen you post, my take is that you think just having a big stack in all circumstances is better than not even though you can't win or lose more than the smallest stack involved in the hand. And to me that just doesn't make any sense.

It makes even less sense because you can always rebuy if you bust in a cash game. Maybe you can't buy up to the big stack, but that's whatever. You play by the rules. All limiting buy ins does is handicap good players by making it harder for them to win back their losses quickly.

Deep pockets are irrelevant because people should be playing with amounts they are comfortable losing anyway. So if for example I feel pressure playing against a big stack, that's not an advantage of the big stack, that's an issue with me.

So several of the arguments you have made make no sense to me. Eddie said it best in that all stack sizes do are amplify or mitigate a person's skill.
 
I think I get what you're saying, but I don't think that's a good way to think about the how-big-can-we-rebuy question. Here's an example that maybe will help explain why:

Let's say Bob is bad and Gordon is great at poker. They start with 100bb. Gordon gets Bob all in while Bob is way behind in the hand and now Gordon has 200bb to Bob's zilch.

Bob wants to rebuy to match the big stack so he can win his money back. But the group thinks "No way, that's not fair, Gordon earned his big stack fair and square. Bob should have to rebuy at the normal max buyin and work his way up from there. Gotta be fair to Gordon, after all."

Meanwhile Gordon is super-annoyed at the group. He doesn't want everyone protecting his precious big stack from unearned competition. He wants Bob to buy in for as much money as Bob has in his wallet because he can't win what Bob doesn't put on the table. By preventing Bob from buying in big, you're not preventing Bob from getting an unearned advantage, you're preventing Gordon from getting the advantage he worked so hard to get! If Bob doesn't buy in big, Gordon doesn't have an advantage from having a big stack.

You don't get an advantage from having a big stack. You get an advantage by other, weaker players having at least as big a stack as you do, so that you can take it away from them.
This is again just another example of how allowing a rebuy to the biggest stack can provide an advantage in a different way. Like I said, there is more than one way it provides an advantage. This is just an argument for it from a different perspective.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account and join our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Back
Top Bottom