Cash Game Max cash game re-buy as a % of the largest stack (3 Viewers)

[DoubleEagle]

Just curious what your game allows. I see PCF members posting 50%, 75% and sometimes 100% of the largest stack at the table. What does your group do?

 

[sheikh617]

50% as long as the game has been running for at least two hours. It has only ever been relevant a couple times.

 

[mrplacey]

We have a fixed rebuy of 100 BB. It limits the size of the game, but we're playing amongst friends and it's more of a social gathering than anything else.

 

[JustinInMN]

We have a fixed rebuy of 100 BB. It limits the size of the game, but we're playing amongst friends and it's more of a social gathering than anything else.

I think I have been converted back to fix max. I understand escalating the buy in to a point, it can make it more enticing to buy back in, but overall, I think it might encourage big stacks to cash out at the earliest polite moment.

Personally, I think the best governor on a big bet game is a "hand cap" instead of limiting buy ins. A hand cap basically fixes the "effective stack" unless someone has a stack shorter than the cap. So if it's 1-1 with a 200 cap, players are all in once the total wagers for the hand reach 200.

Full tilt way back when ran games like this and I thought it made a lot of sense. But I don't think players today accept that.

 

[Mike mac]

i allow them to buy in for what ever they like. nothing worse that being down 3 bullets and your only allowed to buy in for a limited amount,,,, no limit

 

[Rhodeman77]

I allow up to the big stack, but I think the most anyone has done is $1000 and the big stack was probably 3x that. The starting max is $300 and if players rebuy above that it is usually $500 so nothing too crazy.

 

[pltrgyst]

Just curious what your game allows. I see PCF members posting 50%, 75% and sometimes 100% of the largest stack at the table.

When re-buys of more than the initial max are allowed, what they do is:

1. Penalize the big stack, who has earned his advantage (unless you believe that poker is really a game of chance).

2. Force everyone else at the table to either add-on to that amount, or to play at a significant disadvantage.

3. Drive the effective stakes of your home game ever upward, which may lose you players.

4. Open the gates to collusion, whereby two players agree in advance to play recklessly only against each other, re-buying ever upward to build huge stacks, and thereafter putting the rest of the table at a huge disadvantage. I've seen this several times among Russian-speaking players at the Borgata.

In my long-time home game, re-buys were limited to the initial max buy-in, period.

 

[surfik]

50%

 

[Kid_Eastwood]

I prefer to limit it the initial buyin. Period.

As said by @pltrgyst , allowing to buyin more than max initial buyin penalizes the big stack and the other players who would not want to addon.

 

[1A25R]

I cap the rebuy at the same amount of the max buy-in.

 

[TheBigTater]

When re-buys of more than the initial max are allowed, what they do is:

1. Penalize the big stack, who has earned his advantage (unless you believe that poker is really a game of chance).

2. Force everyone else at the table to either add-on to that amount, or to play at a significant disadvantage.

3. Drive the effective stakes of your home game ever upward, which may lose you players.

4. Open the gates to collusion, whereby two players agree in advance to play recklessly only against each other, re-buying ever upward to build huge stacks, and thereafter putting the rest of the table at a huge disadvantage. I've seen this several times among Russian-speaking players at the Borgata.

In my long-time home game, re-buys were limited to the initial max buy-in, period.

This ^^^, agree on all points. Limit the rebuy to the max initial amount.

 

[BGinGA]

This ^^^, agree on all points. Limit the rebuy to the max initial amount.

Only problem that this policy presents is that additional rules are needed regarding *when* re-buys are allowed. Only when felted? Only when the stsck is below the maximum initial buy-in amount? Re-buys only *up to* the initial max. amount?

For example, if the initial max is $200, and my stack has been cut in half (now $100), can I re-buy at all, am I limited to just $100, or can I re-buy for the initial max amount of $200 (making my stack now $300)?

What sounds like a simple re-buy statement/rule isn't really that simple in practice, and needs further clarification.

Personally, I like the concept of allowing re-buys up to 50% of the big stack size with a hard limit of 2x the initial buy-in amount.

 

[TheBigTater]

I consider rebuying before you are felted to be "topping off" not a "re-buy", which is different (depending on your rules). Topping off to bring you stack up to the initial buy-in amount is acceptable (but a pain in the ass).

Of course if you are banking and somebody is constantly topping off every other hand then you will need a rule for that as well (or a 2x4).

 

[1A25R]

Home rules
Min buy-in 20 BB
Max buy-in 100 BB
Rebuy OK when bellow 20 BB

It may not be perfect, but works fine for our gatherings

 

[Coyote]

I offer the possibility of rebuying (or topping off) up to half the big stack in my games (ie if half the big stack is bigger than the max buy-in), although I 'm not a die-hard proponent of this and I 'm open to different views.
The truth is that this option has been used very rarely by my players, with a standard (both min and max) 100BB buy-in of 50E (at .50/.50).
It has never been used in a friend's game which is .50/1E, min 60E-max100E, where few people buy in for the maximum anyway.

Off course, by re-buy amounts we mean the total (ie which amount the bank is taking you to; not the amount handed - the two coincide only when rebuying after being felted).
If topping-off is abused, of course another rule of "minimum amount about which to bother the bank" is required.

 

[pltrgyst]

Only problem that this policy presents is that additional rules are needed regarding *when* re-buys are allowed. Only when felted? Only when the stsck is below the maximum initial buy-in amount? Re-buys only *up to* the initial max. amount?

For example, if the initial max is $200, and my stack has been cut in half (now $100), can I re-buy at all, am I limited to just $100, or can I re-buy for the initial max amount of $200 (making my stack now $300)?

What sounds like a simple re-buy statement/rule isn't really that simple in practice, and needs further clarification.

In my experience, the term "re-buy" only applies to being felted.

"Adding-on" applies to the act of topping up. In my home games, adding-on was allowed at any time between hands, in $20 increments, without going over the initial max buy-in.

Personally, I like the concept of allowing re-buys up to 50% of the big stack size with a hard limit of 2x the initial buy-in amount.

That sounds like a reasonable compromise.

 

[gkitt80]

Penalizing the big stack by allowing a buyin > than the initial max buyin isn't taking into account all the potential variables though. Perhaps the big stack is a crusher - maybe he wants more money on the table.

I generally allow 100% big stack after 2ish hours pass. I understand the argument that it "penalizes" the current big stack, I just don't necessarily agree with it in all circumstances. Mind you I play smaller stakes in my game (50c or $1 big blinds), so not F You money and people generally don't care if they lose 3-4 buyins. I could conceivably see dynamics changing as the stakes increase.

 

[JustinInMN]

I consider rebuying before you are felted to be "topping off" not a "re-buy", which is different (depending on your rules). Topping off to bring you stack up to the initial buy-in amount is acceptable (but a pain in the ass).

Of course if you are banking and somebody is constantly topping off every other hand then you will need a rule for that as well (or a 2x4).

I do have a rule that an addon does have to be at least in the amount of the game minimum, which is usually 10-20BB. This prevents people pulling out quarters and singles every time they post blinds , not that players in my games would do that.

But basically what @pltrgyst said without being stake specific.

 

[Shaggy]

Up to the biggest stack... or 2x the initial buy-in... whichever is less.

I used to allow up to the largest stack without limitiation... but one player "took advantage" of this rule to a degree. In reality he was a more experienced and more aggressive player than most in my game. He would re-buy to the largest stack, play aggressive, get felted, and then rebuy to the new largest stack... rinse and repeat. Sometimes he would finish down... often times he would break about even or finish up. In most instances, the regulars in my game complained about this player's "style." I implemented the above rule "for the good of the game."

The reality of the matter is that my players were not able to adjust to this one player's aggressiveness... but c'est la vie. Rule change it is.

 

[surfik]

It depends on the situation. If you have closed table with friends... Anything goes. We introduced 50% cap to prevent bullying from visiting pros. Table was open but on our rules.

 

[dkersey]

Up to the biggest stack... or 2x the initial buy-in... whichever is less.

I used to allow up to the largest stack without limitiation... but one player "took advantage" of this rule to a degree. In reality he was a more experienced and more aggressive player than most in my game. He would re-buy to the largest stack, play aggressive, get felted, and then rebuy to the new largest stack... rinse and repeat. Sometimes he would finish down... often times he would break about even or finish up. In most instances, the regulars in my game complained about this player's "style." I implemented the above rule "for the good of the game."

The reality of the matter is that my players were not able to adjust to this one player's aggressiveness... but c'est la vie. Rule change it is.

+1 for the same reasons. I felt this was better for the continuity of the group. Otherwise, he was chasing/pushing people away and making it more difficult to grow/maintain the group.

 

[200 Motels]

We have no cap on our 25c/25c game (NLH PLO r4r) It gets incredibly deep with an incident of a player busting and rebuying for $1000.

We've tossed around the idea of a cap of $100 which is plenty bb imo. Nothing was nailed down. Last game no one bought in for over $100 so didn't get out of hand.

 

[Coyote]

We have no cap on our 25c/25c game (NLH PLO r4r) It gets incredibly deep with an incident of a player busting and rebuying for $1000.

We've tossed around the idea of a cap of $100 which is plenty bb imo. Nothing was nailed down. Last game no one bought in for over $100 so didn't get out of hand.

I have always been a proponent of the anti-"rich maniac" rule of a cap for the total buy-in per player per night (for home games that is, with people somewhat socially connected).
When you invite people for a game of any given stakes, it's not fair to have a guy come with 1000BB or more in his pocket and allow him to put all that on the table.
In that case, you haven't been honest to the rest about the true stakes, IMO.

 

[200 Motels]

I have always been a proponent of the anti-"rich maniac" rule of a cap for the total buy-in per player per night (for home games that is, with people somewhat socially connected).
When you invite people for a game of any given stakes, it's not fair to have a guy come with 1000BB or more in his pocket and allow him to put all that on the table.
In that case, you haven't been honest to the rest about the true stakes, IMO.

It's definitely been a running joke that "It's a quarter game". Outsiders are typically made aware that it plays deep and their expectations are set on how much is usually on the table near the end of the night. It's a really good point though, that it's not an honest representation the stakes.

 

[phdlance]

We do 100% but I would prefer lower, e.g. 50% or the starting stack size.

 

[jcooper911]

I only allow buys of chips of $100 or less, but usually allow people to top off up if there is a $200+ stack - so if one person has $220, the person with $60 can top off to $160 but no more than that...