Rebuying for more than max: did I overstep as host? (5 Viewers)

[moose]

I've always felt that capped rebuys, and buyins after the first couple hours, protects the big stacks more than anyone else.

Isn't that fair though? They built the stack. It's a different debate but I hate the 1/2 big stack rule. That person worked for the stack, to gain an advantage over the table and then someone who he didn't even take money from gets to add on to to half his stack, WTF. Now that person wins a flip against him and half his stack and his advantage is gone.

 

[MatB]

Built the stack, maybe or won it in a 4 way all in coin flip and hit a 1 outer.

Either way if big stack is sitting on $800. They are protected with called buyins at 100 or 200.

That’s why I like 1/2 big stack rule

 

[MatB]

I was at a friendly home game this year, multiple tables.

Seat opens up at the main table.
I sit down and buy in for 400, no one says anything. I didn’t ask what the buy in was for. Multiple stacks around the table. Nothing higher than 4 or 500

10 minutes go by and I get felted

I say, rebuy! And ask for $400 more.
At this point everyone at the table who was there when I sat down first is still there. Nothing has changed.
One person, let’s call them. FlippymcFlipperson decides to say No! It’s half the big stack rule.
Which at this point biggest stack was about 580 maybe.
I’m like. Wtf. There were no complaints when I bought in for 400 10 minutes ago. I make a fuss and ask for a ruling.

Anyway long story short... nittyMcnitterson tilted the shit out of me.
The host (not playing at our table) decided to rule in the donkeys favor as it would save headache.
Fwiw no one else at the table cared what amount was bought in for
Also fwiw. I think the host did mental math on who would complain longer and give him bigger headache. Me or DonkeyMcDonkerson. So ruled the way he did.


@Chippy McChiperson have you experienced anything like this?

 

[DrStrange]

I think this is mistake. The size of the buy-in is perhaps the biggest factor in how the game is played. It affects the weakest players the most. Let's be crystal clear here - - - bigger / deeper stacks are not an advantage to the weakest players at the table. Bigger rebuys benefit only the better players. Not every weaker player knows that and not everyone is able to understand they are a weaker player.

Asking for a vote to change the rules puts potentially objecting players in a tough spot. It is the host that is asking. There will be some social pressure from the players who prefer bigger games and players who understand they will be advantaged by an exception to the rules.

Are the rules always subject to a group vote? Can the table hold a vote to override a ruling by the host? If someone wants to buy in for enough to cover the table, can they ask for vote?

I believe this is a one time thing. I encourage the OP not to do this again. The affects are not always obvious nor do they emerge that night.

DrStrange

 

[Forty4]

Had to edit as another post before mine. In reference to @MatB

Think that’s different as you moved from another table. Essentially you could “go south” by winning a big hand then asking for a seat change to protect your stack.

I will add I’ve heard of stories where people request seat change and then pull chips out of their pocket to add to their stack to play deeper at the new table.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

I was at a friendly home game this year, multiple tables.

Seat opens up at the main table.
I sit down and buy in for 400, no one says anything. I didn’t ask what the buy in was for. Multiple stacks around the table. Nothing higher than 4 or 500

10 minutes go by and I get felted

I say, rebuy! And ask for $400 more.
At this point everyone at the table who was there when I sat down first is still there. Nothing has changed.
One person, let’s call them. FlippymcFlipperson decides to say No! It’s half the big stack rule.
Which at this point biggest stack was about 580 maybe.
I’m like. Wtf. There were no complaints when I bought in for 400 10 minutes ago. I make a fuss and ask for a ruling.

Anyway long story short... nittyMcnitterson tilted the shit out of me.
The host (not playing at our table) decided to rule in the donkeys favor as it would save headache.
Fwiw no one else at the table cared what amount was bought in for
Also fwiw. I think the host did mental math on who would complain longer and give him bigger headache. Me or DonkeyMcDonkerson. So ruled the way he did.


@Chippy McChiperson have you experienced anything like this?

When you bought in the first time, there was a huge stack at the table. He racked up and cashed out before you had the chance to donk off your buy-in (and you were trying to add on 400 to 80 that you had in your stack when the big stack was like 500). Other people had an issue with it, but were uncomfortable speaking up. Sorry you suck at poker and are so easily tilted though, maybe you should work on that.

 

[MatB]

When you bought in the first time, there was a huge stack at the table. He racked up and cashed out before you had the chance to donk off your buy-in (and you were trying to add on 400 to 80 that you had in your stack when the big stack was like 500). Other people had an issue with it, but we’re uncomfortable speaking up. Sorry you suck at poker and are so easily tilted though, maybe you should work on that.

Falsehoods !

Big stack left opening up a seat for me

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Falsehoods !

Big stack left opening up a seat for me

Nope, big stack was on my right, you were two to my left. Nice try though.

 

[MatB]

Being bad at poker and winning is an art form and takes great skill

But yes. I should not have let it tilt me so much.

 

[MatB]

Nope, big stack was on my right, you were two to my left. Nice try though.

I sat down on your right. And moved seats

 

[Perthmike]

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

I sat down on your right. And moved seats

Not true, but maybe we shouldn’t threadjack someone else’s thread

 

[BGinGA]

Personally, I think that if a up-to-1/2-bigstack rule is in effect, then the big stack should also be allowed to go south with up to 1/2 of his stack. Or at least be able to also add-on as much as the other guy did.

Flame away, but it makes sense to me.

 

[MatB]

It’s an interesting thread and this does relate to the OP.

 

[chipjoker]

I host a .25/.50 cash game $40-$100 Buy-in, I emlimented rules before I hosted and then as questions were asked at a game I looked into that question and a rule was set in place.
As a host you have a responsibility, I know I don't need to mention that, to run your game and follow the rules yourself.

My rule was, a player can re-buy up to the biggest stack on the table. This became a concern at someone else's house as one player would do this often in one night and people preconceived him as a BULLY.

So after that, that game and My game changed that rule to , a player can buy in up to the biggest (if less then $300), or $300. This allows the Bigger players feel that they do not have a disadvantage and the other players do not feel bullied.

Basicly, I think you should put a rule in place that is fair for everyone and follow it, if you have a ONE TIME, that seems wired/unfair, Either have large re-buys or dont, IMO.

 

[MatB]

Not true, but maybe we shouldn’t threadjack someone else’s thread

100% true. I sat dow in the 2 or 3 seat. And bought in. You were on my left. Another player to your left got up and I moved over there after playing about 4 hands.

My really only complaint was that I couldn’t buy in for 400 aftertastes I’d just sat down and bought for 400 and losing it.
Wether we disagree on what big stack was at the time I sat down is one thing
Just tilting that I lose 400 in 10 minutes and then blocked from buying in for same amount 10 minutes later.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

It’s simple, you were trying to add on to almost $500 when the big stack was barely $500. We didn’t have a problem the first time because there was a big stack at the table, so you weren’t buying in for more than half the big stack. Your memory is almost as flawed as your poker playing.

 

[MatB]

Add on to $500?

That doesn’t even compute.

Roman had about $580 and was the big stack when I was felted and tried to buy in for $400
But was told I could only buy in for $250
Which was annoying because I’d just sat down and bought in for $400.
Your confused as to when the big stack and I was there. Wasn’t at the same time.
Yes you are a fantastic poker player, sorry I meant a great Tahoe pitch and role Player.
I won’t judge you on your win rate of the other circus games as I have no data

 

[Steamtrain]

Watching

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

Add on to $500?

That doesn’t even compute.

Roman had about $580 and was the big stack when I was felted and tried to buy in for $400
But was told I could only buy in for $250
Which was annoying because I’d just sat down and bought in for $400.
Your confused as to when the big stack and I was there. Wasn’t at the same time.
Yes you are a fantastic poker player, sorry I meant a great Tahoe pitch and role Player.
I won’t judge you on your win rate of the other circus games as I have no data

You weren't completely felted you had about $80 left in your stack. And you argued for ten minutes about how much Roman had in his stack, before you conceded and tried moving to your next argument. The only thing I'm confused about is how many sheep you've had amorous relations with, is it in triple or quadruple digits.

P.S. you should be thanking me, the way you were playing you'd have dusted off your money way more quickly than you actually did.

 

[bentax1978]

The only thing I'm confused about is how many sheep you've had amorous relations with, is it in triple or quadruple digits.

Don't worry @MatB, I won't disclose the number. What goes on at LLM, stays at LLM.

 

[phaze12]

The reason I allow buy ins up to 1/2 the big stack is because if I don’t, it WILL kill the game. The “big stack” has such an advantage they can just raise every pot to put the rest of the players stacks “in jeopardy”. It becomes like the end of a donkament, all in fest. It’s just good for the health of the game.

 

[MatB]

View attachment 282510



Don't worry @MatB, I won't disclose the number. What goes on at LLM, stays at LLM.

Loose Lamb Mellee ?

 

[bentax1978]

Loose Lamb Mellee ?

Lambs Love Matt.

 

[pltrgyst]

....The “big stack” has such an advantage they can just raise every pot to put the rest of the players stacks “in jeopardy”. It becomes like the end of a donkament, all in fest. It’s just good for the health of the game.

Your players don't know how to tighten up and take advantage of that to whittle him down to size?

 

[phaze12]

Your players don't know how to tighten up and take advantage of that to whittle him down to size?

Some do. But the people that you want in the game don’t. That is where you have to make a choice. A game full of good players kills a game.

You need a good “mix” of players to sustain a game.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Not true, but maybe we shouldn’t threadjack someone else’s thread

Threadjack away, it's a relevant discussion and I don't mind.

EDIT: As long as it's constructive and not he said she said.

 

[MatB]

But she did say that. !

 

[bentax1978]

EDIT: As long as it's constructive and not he said she said.

What about questions pertaining to the number of sheep @MatB has been with? Would that be considered constructive?

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

I guess to make it relevant to your thread, in the event someone with a big stack gets moved to a table, and proceeds to get short stacked or even felted, they should still only be allowed to buy in for half the big stack if that's the rule in place. Why should the rules not apply to them just because they lost a big pot?

In answer to your initial question though (and admittedly I'm a rules nit) I would say what you did probably wasn't optimal. Even if someone wasnt cool with you reloading for 200, they may not have been comfortable saying anything since you're the host. My best advice is to pick which way you want to go, and stick with that rule for everybody, no matter what.