Venting about a capped max buy in (2 Viewers)

TheJestyr

3 of a Kind
Joined
Dec 13, 2015
Messages
548
Reaction score
1,146
Location
Northeast, OH
So let me preface this by saying I am biased because of my history with poker.

I grew up playing dealer’s choice games with family and close friends. Could win or lose $100 in a night, but most of the time averaging around $40-$50 up or down.

First time I played poker in a casino was $1-$4 spread limit 7-stud.

Eventually I moved to limit hold-em, then NLHE, and currently PLO is my game of choice, but still really love all forms of poker.

I say all this because in spread limit and limit games, there wasn’t a capped buy in because there didn’t need to be one…you couldn’t go all in (unless you had overs or whatever but that was a later development to the game) so it didn’t matter if you had $100 or $1,000,000 on the table, the most you could bet was fixed.

When NL starting being played, originally there was no capped buy in (at least not in the dozen or so card rooms I played in across the country)…that was also at a time when cash would play, and you could bury a few thousand dollars under your stacks so when you went all-in, you could ambush your opponent and take his/her whole stack…but that’s a different story.

No capped buy ins really defined my style of play. I purposely chose games where I could buy in for 500-1000bb and push the table around. It made people uncomfortable when I’d constantly push the action and hit them with big bets.

But I think it’s strange that so many games have caps, especially lower 100bb caps. By the time you raise and reraise preflop, you have over 10% of your stack in the pot, and it feels like you’re shooting the rest of your stack in on the flop and turn instead of having enough room to play strategically and still have a large river bet.

Now I fully understand that I can practice pot control or small ball or whatever in order to keep a decent sized barrel on the river, but there’s definitely times where big bets are a must when playing poker properly, and I feel like capped buy ins really hurt that.

Thanks for letting me vent.

Bottom line is I’m bad at the pokers and trying to maximize my losses by putting too much in play haha
 
bury a few thousand dollars under your stacks so when you went all-in, you could ambush your opponent and take his/her whole stack
This is angling. Big chips should always be clearly visible, either on top or in front of other chips.
But I think it’s strange that so many games have caps, especially lower 100bb caps
Caps are fish-friendly (and thus more appealing to more players and generating more rake) because…
By the time you raise and reraise preflop, you have over 10% of your stack in the pot, and it feels like you’re shooting the rest of your stack in on the flop and turn instead of having enough room to play strategically and still have a large river bet.
Deeper stacks allow for more skilled play.
 
I'll preface this by saying that I consider a practice good for the game of poker if it does any of the following: invites new players to try the game, inspires existing players to play more, and/or allows casual players to win occasionally and get more entertainment out of their losing sessions.

Through this lens, a practice is bad for the game if it pushes in the opposite direction, discouraging new players or making it harder for casual players. This is naturally true of any rule or structure that favors skilled players.

that was also at a time when cash would play, and you could bury a few thousand dollars under your stacks so when you went all-in, you could ambush your opponent and take his/her whole stack…but that’s a different story.
Agree with @dmoney that this is angling, or worse. If you did this in my game, I wouldn't invite you back.

Whatever the case, it's horribly bad for the game. Being tricked out of their money makes people upset. Pretty self-evident. You may as well pickpocket the guy on the way out too.

No capped buy ins really defined my style of play. I purposely chose games where I could buy in for 500-1000bb and push the table around. It made people uncomfortable when I’d constantly push the action and hit them with big bets.
Making people uncomfortable might make you money in the short term, but it's bad for the game.

In the long term, games that allow this eventually shrink up and die because so many players get tired of getting bullied out of pots or priced out of the game entirely. Part of the game for most people is fun, and if they're not having fun, they're out.

Capped buy-ins exist for exactly this reason. They protect the game from sharks and bullies, so that casual players have a chance to actually enjoy it instead of being driven out of the game by big-fish-small-pond types. Without it, there would be nowhere near as many NL/PL cash games out there—at least not ones with an open invite list.
 
If your player pool is full of gamblers/pros that study the game with deep pockets, uncapped may work for you.

If my game was uncapped I'd have to always be recruiting and bringing randoms into my home.

worm2.jpg
 
First time I played poker in a casino was $1-$4 spread limit 7-stud.

Man do I ever regret not playing the 1-5 spread limit stud game at the Mirage! I saw it during the poker boom when I was there to make money and focused on no limit.

If only I realized I already had a job, and a job is what no limit eventually became to me...
 
Last edited:
Lower buy-in structures benefit the weaker players, Uncapped buy-in rules benefit the strongest players, often times in overwhelming ways. While this might seem like a good idea to the best players, that is short sighted as the weakest players gets slaughtered over and over until they drop out. Perhaps that is fine for a casino game with unlimited player pools, Perhaps not. But it is the kiss of death for lots of home games.

As for the notion that the big stack has an edge over the short stacks in a cash game. I wonder if someone has been watching too much tournament style play on TV and somehow imported that way of thinking into their cash game. One or two short stacks have an edge over the rest of the table playing big stacks. Here is why.

The big stacks are putting their focus on post flop play, implied odds, trying to mix up their game. The cost for not paying attention is often a huge loss later in a hand. The big stacks have to be cautious holding one-pair sorts of hands while they can play all sorts of suited connector - junk hands hoping to get a big pay day while concealing their hand strength.

A short stack doesn't have to do any of this. Give me and my short stack some potential dead money and a big ace / some sort of pair and I am prepared for a smash mouth war. Let's pretend . . .

I sit down with my 75BB buy in. The other seven of you are ballers and buy in deep, anywhere from 500BB to 2,000BB. You'll see me looking for ways to get my stack in preflop or at worst on a favorable flop. Big thank you to anyone who staddles! I don't care if you know my strategy or my pretty simple ranges. You guys splash around and I'll try to clean up the dead money / get my chips in as a coin flip + a little dead money or if I see a flop, jamming on any top pair+ hand.

Not worried about getting abused by big stack aggression. Long before that happens, I am either all in, pot committed or folded. There is variance for the short stack. But the expected value is solidly positive, if the short stack is capable. < Not accounting for rake. Rake/time charges can make short stacking unprofitable. > The big stacks aren't bullying the shorty, the short stack is exploiting the rest of the table and there isn't much they can do about it.
 
Last edited:
I've been contemplating this in my game recently. I personally like to start at 200 bb (.25/.50), I think it makes for more interesting play. About half my regular players are good with this, buy in for the max, and I've seen them torch $300+ with a smile on their face. Myself included. The other half of my players buy in for $40 or $60 at a time and tap out around $100-$150. Not a problem per se since they do keep coming back, but not exactly great either, I see them as at-risk for attendance.

I'm considering dropping it to $50 cap, and may drop the BB to .25 as well. I may just do this half the time, or instead for the occasional circus night. Trouble with that is most of my guys hate everything: poker = Holdem so not sure how I'm gonna pull that one off :LOL: :laugh: .

I wouldn't mind having two crowds, and for the bigger game going up to .50/1.00 and maybe eventually 1/2 (200bb cap) just NL HE. Seems risky though so I'm going to leave that one be for now and see how things progress with the .50 bb.
 
I've been contemplating this in my game recently. I personally like to start at 200 bb (.25/.50), I think it makes for more interesting play. About half my regular players are good with this, buy in for the max, and I've seen them torch $300+ with a smile on their face. Myself included. The other half of my players buy in for $40 or $60 at a time and tap out around $100-$150. Not a problem per se since they do keep coming back, but not exactly great either, I see them as at-risk for attendance.

I'm considering dropping it to $50 cap, and may drop the BB to .25 as well. I may just do this half the time, or instead for the occasional circus night. Trouble with that is most of my guys hate everything: poker = Holdem so not sure how I'm gonna pull that one off :LOL: :laugh: .

I wouldn't mind having two crowds, and for the bigger game going up to .50/1.00 and maybe eventually 1/2 (200bb cap) just NL HE. Seems risky though so I'm going to leave that one be for now and see how things progress with the .50 bb.
I’ve hosted an online .25/.50 game with $100 max for about 3 years. Core players are okay with 3 buys ins. A few will go to five+. The weaker players tap out after one buy in or two half buy ins. The bad players do get chewed up after a bit so it is an issue to the point some have raised. The key is having a core group to keep the game liquid.
 
…that was also at a time when cash would play, and you could bury a few thousand dollars under your stacks so when you went all-in, you could ambush your opponent and take his/her whole stack…
This, coupled with your profile picture gives me a sense of the kind of person you are. I won't be surprised to read of a violent end to your life some day.
 
Wow! I find these responses so fascinating! Especially all the people addressing the cash under the chips.

My experience mostly comes from casinos that I’d have to drive 3+ hours to get to. So player pool was never an issue at the time. There would be a 2-3 hour wait to get in a game and no shortage of players waiting to take the next seat open. So yes, the practices I discussed were not to keep a home game going or to keep new players coming back. It was to maximize profit in that session. Obviously in hindsight it’s shortsighted and if I was referring to a home game, things might have been different, but I’m strictly talking casinos for purposes of OP.

I think the people commenting on the cash is super interesting! In a game where you are trying to outplay and deceive your opponents, whether it’s representing a hand you don’t have, a table image that is contradictory to how you’re actually playing, or how many chips you have on the table, I'm surprised at how many judged the misrepresentation of stacks. “Big chips up front” and the like hasn’t always been a universally accepted rule. In fact, even in casinos, we were often encouraged to keep our big chips behind and protected so other people wouldn’t be able to steal the big chips from you. This was true at many casinos from Nevada to Michigan to New York to the Gulf.

I’m not saying by any means that it’s good practice today, but at the time, the floor, dealers, and other players at the table j’s the philosophy that if someone doesn’t ask for a count before going or calling an all in, that’s the same as someone not protecting their hand if muck cards hit it.

Again, please don’t misjudge what I’m saying. In todays poker culture it’s considered angling. But at the time, misrepresenting your stack size was viewed same as misrepresenting your hand. If you verbally said you had less money, same as if you verbally rolled out a hand at the end that you didn’t have, that’s definitely wrong. But if someone didn’t ask for a count, that was considered part of the game.

Also, I appreciate the input on cap buy ins and the scenarios put forth. Can’t say I agree with them upon initial reading, but definitely going to contemplate it more!

Lastly, I’m amazed at some of the ignorance present on this thread.

Thanks all!! I really appreciate your time and energy on this thread!! :)
 
The way you have narrated your post reminds me of the Martengale system of play often used in roulette. It works out great if you can hold out on funds and don’t find someone with a larger bank roll and gamble.

While @DrStrange isnt wrong about uncapped buys favor stronger players, OR people with more gambol, I often see someone with more money than sense have large buyins and run at coin flips until they get lucky. It drives me nuts. These are the same guys complaining when people get and leave with all the money =)

Capped buyins also promote better play over time.

I would think you’ll eventually find Omaha and things will change for you.
 
I'm 57, and, as long as I've been in card rooms the rules that you are talking about have been in place. Probably 30 years. I see you taking a lot of space trying to justify things that many here, and probably elsewhere, find questionable at best. My experience with this is a person like that has less than reputable character.

I don't know you, but, first impressions and all.
 
I’ve hosted an online .25/.50 game with $100 max for about 3 years. Core players are okay with 3 buys ins. A few will go to five+. The weaker players tap out after one buy in or two half buy ins. The bad players do get chewed up after a bit so it is an issue to the point some have raised. The key is having a core group to keep the game liquid.

Yeah I am a slightly concerned about overall game health. I don't think I'm in trouble but I don't want to head down that path at all. I have had a few first timers who have not returned, which could be for any number of reasons. I suspect, at least in some part, the stakes are outside their comfort level despite me being forthcoming in my invite.

My core group is fine, even the short buy in ones, at least for now. But I don't want to lose them which is why I'm considering lowering the cap at least some of the time. Even if I never lose them, if I happen to get the wrong mix of players it could be a very short night. Hasn't been a problem so far though.

For now the only thing I'm changing is to drop PLO from the game and go just Holdem. I think that was turning people off and simultaneously driving up stakes.
 
The way you have narrated your post reminds me of the Martengale system of play often used in roulette. It works out great if you can hold out on funds and don’t find someone with a larger bank roll and gamble.

While @DrStrange isnt wrong about uncapped buys favor stronger players, OR people with more gambol, I often see someone with more money than sense have large buyins and run at coin flips until they get lucky. It drives me nuts. These are the same guys complaining when people get and leave with all the money =)

Capped buyins also promote better play over time.

I would think you’ll eventually find Omaha and things will change for you.
Curious what you mean things will change me? (Not being defensive, just looking for clarification) thanks!
 
I'm 57, and, as long as I've been in card rooms the rules that you are talking about have been in place. Probably 30 years. I see you taking a lot of space trying to justify things that many here, and probably elsewhere, find questionable at best. My experience with this is a person like that has less than reputable character.

I don't know you, but, first impressions and all.
You’re obviously entitled to your opinion, and lord knows Jesus met a violent end, so I’d be in good company, but I’m shocked at the assumptions made and conclusion you ended up with.

You are absolutely older and more experienced than me, I can’t deny. But the almost 25 years I’ve spent in various card rooms have apparently given me a different perspective than you.

Not saying zero card rooms had the big chips up front rule, but definitely many casinos and the cash games at WSOP didn’t have this rule for many years and was left open for exploitation. Again, not saying it’s right, but it happened a lot.
 
In a game where you are trying to outplay and deceive your opponents, whether it’s representing a hand you don’t have, a table image that is contradictory to how you’re actually playing, or how many chips you have on the table, I'm surprised at how many judged the misrepresentation of stacks. “Big chips up front” and the like hasn’t always been a universally accepted rule. In fact, even in casinos, we were often encouraged to keep our big chips behind and protected so other people wouldn’t be able to steal the big chips from you. This was true at many casinos from Nevada to Michigan to New York to the Gulf.
I haven’t been playing in casinos nearly long enough to have an opinion here, but I hope other people who have will chime in. Because I have a hard time believing that misleading people on your stack size was ever an acceptable thing to do in NLHE.

I will say that I can remember being encouraged to keep big chips on the bottom of your stack to prevent easy theft. But that stack still was supposed to be up front where everybody could see it.
 
Last edited:
I haven’t been playing in casinos nearly long enough to have an opinion here, but I hope other people who have will chime in. Because I have a hard time believing that misleading people on your stack size was ever an acceptable thing to do in NLHE.

I will say that I can remember being encouraged to keep big chips on the bottom of your stack to prevent east theft. But that stack still was supposed to be up front where everybody could see it.
Yup…it’s a big part why cash isn’t allowed in play anymore. That and laundering. But there was definitely a few years where big chips/cash wasn’t enforced, and it was expected that you ask stack size before calling/going all in.
I’d say you are a holdem player, yes?
Been playing PLO for about 12 years now.
 
feeding the rake drives all major decisions in a casino poker room.

More casinos/card rooms means it is harder to keep the seats filled. Players going broke faster breaks games faster which leads to less rake. If the casino could run only $2/4 limit all day at every table they would love it! They would be the only one making any money.

The casino doesn’t care about you winning a ton of money, you win a $5k pot, they make $6. You win a $100 pot, they make $6.

So if the casino can get someone to play for 5 hours losing $200 over 5 buy-ins instead of having them go broke losing $1k on a single buy-in in an hour, that is what they want. It makes them more money.
 
Been playing PLO for about 12 years now.
That explains at lot. Your post adds up now.

So capped PLO serves an additional purpose for PLO games especially raked games. PLO busts players the cap helps the game from dying out faster.

if you pass through Indy let me know I’ll find you a game without a cap ;) all the action you want and a crap load you don’t ;)
 
feeding the rake drives all major decisions in a casino poker room.

More casinos/card rooms means it is harder to keep the seats filled. Players going broke faster breaks games faster which leads to less rake. If the casino could run only $2/4 limit all day at every table they would love it! They would be the only one making any money.

The casino doesn’t care about you winning a ton of money, you win a $5k pot, they make $6. You win a $100 pot, they make $6.

So if the casino can get someone to play for 5 hours losing $200 over 5 buy-ins instead of having them go broke losing $1k on a single buy-in in an hour, that is what they want. It makes them more money.

As usual, you nailed it. Whatever makes games faster is good for the casino. It's why it's a no-brainer for them to lease shuffle machines for 4-figures a piece every year. If it means two extra drops an hour, totally worth it.

I've been playing in Minnesota public card rooms for about 20 years now. Mostly limit cash games back then (now it's about half limit games, half 2-100 "spread limit", we have a 100 bet limit by regulation here) so the denomination thing wasn't an issue except in tournaments. In tournaments, big chips in front has always been the paradigm.

But back to the point that it's all about the rake, at some point having to ask for a count every time there's an all in is bad for the rake, some of those requests get saved if it's big chips in front. And honestly, big chips in front means further from the rail, which means a lot tougher for a random passer by to snatch and grab.

Aside on the cash in play thing. I remember being in Vegas in 2010 and hundreds in play was still a thing. Went back in 2021 and everyone said that went away.

But bottom line, casinos are going to design games to maximize how many times they pull the handle. Keeping games full and stretching out how long it takes to break a fish is in the card room's interest. And also, keeping fish interested is in the long term interest of the professional player, whether they know it or not. But it sounds like rules that help the fish and the casino are an inconvenience to one playing style. I say get over it.
 
As usual, you nailed it. Whatever makes games faster is good for the casino. It's why it's a no-brainer for them to lease shuffle machines for 4-figures a piece every year. If it means two extra drops an hour, totally worth it.

I've been playing in Minnesota public card rooms for about 20 years now. Mostly limit cash games back then (now it's about half limit games, half 2-100 "spread limit", we have a 100 bet limit by regulation here) so the denomination thing wasn't an issue except in tournaments. In tournaments, big chips in front has always been the paradigm.

But back to the point that it's all about the rake, at some point having to ask for a count every time there's an all in is bad for the rake, some of those requests get saved if it's big chips in front. And honestly, big chips in front means further from the rail, which means a lot tougher for a random passer by to snatch and grab.

Aside on the cash in play thing. I remember being in Vegas in 2010 and hundreds in play was still a thing. Went back in 2021 and everyone said that went away.

But bottom line, casinos are going to design games to maximize how many times they pull the handle. Keeping games full and stretching out how long it takes to break a fish is in the card room's interest. And also, keeping fish interested is in the long term interest of the professional player, whether they know it or not. But it sounds like rules that help the fish and the casino are an inconvenience to one playing style. I say get over it.
I recall tournaments always being big chips up front as well for whatever that’s worth :)
 
@TheJestyr

I was going to say a lot of the same things that have already been said, but if you don't get it, read and re-read the following 2 posts over and over until you do. Others have it right too, but these two posts say it pretty well....

I'll preface this by saying that I consider a practice good for the game of poker if it does any of the following: invites new players to try the game, inspires existing players to play more, and/or allows casual players to win occasionally and get more entertainment out of their losing sessions.

Through this lens, a practice is bad for the game if it pushes in the opposite direction, discouraging new players or making it harder for casual players. This is naturally true of any rule or structure that favors skilled players.

........Whatever the case, it's horribly bad for the game. Being tricked out of their money makes people upset. Pretty self-evident. You may as well pickpocket the guy on the way out too.


Making people uncomfortable might make you money in the short term, but it's bad for the game.

In the long term, games that allow this eventually shrink up and die because so many players get tired of getting bullied out of pots or priced out of the game entirely. Part of the game for most people is fun, and if they're not having fun, they're out.

Capped buy-ins exist for exactly this reason. They protect the game from sharks and bullies, so that casual players have a chance to actually enjoy it instead of being driven out of the game by big-fish-small-pond types. Without it, there would be nowhere near as many NL/PL cash games out there—at least not ones with an open invite list.

Lower buy-in structures benefit the weaker players, Uncapped buy-in rules benefit the strongest players, often times in overwhelming ways. While this might seem like a good idea to the best players, that is short sighted as the weakest players gets slaughtered over and over until they drop out. Perhaps that is fine for a casino game with unlimited player pools, Perhaps not. But it is the kiss of death for lots of home games..........
Uncapped buy ins, playing too big, playing NL etc all lead to 1 thing and that is players losing fast enough that they quit. It's not only in home games, but in card rooms all over the country too. In just about every location other than Vegas, FL & a few places in CA NL has basically destroyed card rooms everywhere.

The root cause is people losing too fast. Anything that contributes to that is long term bad for the game
 
@TheJestyr

I was going to say a lot of the same things that have already been said, but if you don't get it, read and re-read the following 2 posts over and over until you do. Others have it right too, but these two posts say it pretty well....




Uncapped buy ins, playing too big, playing NL etc all lead to 1 thing and that is players losing fast enough that they quit. It's not only in home games, but in card rooms all over the country too. In just about every location other than Vegas, FL & a few places in CA NL has basically destroyed card rooms everywhere.

The root cause is people losing too fast. Anything that contributes to that is long term bad for the game
So I’ve read and re-read these points and have a couple questions. (And PLEASE know that I’m not coming at you with any attitude, I’m genuinely trying to figure out answers…I swear I’m not being defensive!) :)

Many rec players consider check-raising rude. Slow playing or trapping big hands, overbetting the river, all things that make the game less enjoyable for the casual player. (I was raised that checking wasn’t allowed in our friends and family games.) Yet I argue that these are vital to the different levels of poker artistry. Should these be banned from the game? Or should players learn from their mistakes, learn from different plays used against them, and then improve their own game? I ask because I was on the receiving end of the cash-under-the-stack maneuver and had to learn that moving forward I need to ask for an accurate count when making decisions. I didn’t get mad at the player or the rule, it was just part of the game and I had to learn that.

Again, please don’t think that I’m arguing for it to be allowed today. I’m just stating that poker grew very fast, and not all the rules grew with it, and unfortunately that was just a part of the game. Same as someone strategically betting just enough so the action would reopen if a short stack went all in. It’s all part of the learning process of all the nuances of the game.

Also, I think playing deep stack poker is a skill that is difficult to cultivate if you can only buy in for 100-200bb. I love jamming in short buy ins once in a while, but I know that I take the game way more seriously when I have a stack to consider.

Lot of people brought up the rake. I agree that that’s a factor in not wanting people to go broke fast…doesn’t mean I have to like it though ;)

I went back and forth about posting this last part, but I think it’s relevant…would it matter at all if I said that the games I play in have 5 and 6 figure swings regularly? Does this change how you’d view what’s best for the game or the players in the game? (I wasn’t playing that big twenty years ago when people would have cash under their chips, those games would only be 10-20k swings. Again, not arguing for that to ever come back as an accepted part of poker)… the more I read and consider the comments, the more I think it really does matter because the people I play with aren’t new to the game. And if you’re 20 hours or more into a session and get felted, you want to buy in for a lot more than just 1-200bb.

As before, thanks everyone for your time and energy!! I really appreciate everyone’s input and love thinking about the game we love in a much deeper way!! :) I’m grateful for you PCF!! :)
 
Worth noting that the games I’m referring to above are often uncapped. I just originally posted this thread to vent about caps in general because I feel like it does a disservice to players trying to learn how to play deep stack poker and post flop play, I’m still not convinced 100bb caps are good for the game, feels more like a crapshoot to me, but Im more than willing to mull it over and I really appreciate everyone who’s contributed to this thread so far!
 
Worth noting that the games I’m referring to above are often uncapped. I just originally posted this thread to vent about caps in general because I feel like it does a disservice to players trying to learn how to play deep stack poker and post flop play, I’m still not convinced 100bb caps are good for the game, feels more like a crapshoot to me, but Im more than willing to mull it over and I really appreciate everyone who’s contributed to this thread so far!
So newbs losing way more money is helping them learn.

Interesting.....

 

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