Dugthefish
3 of a Kind
Regardless of stakes, I would never lock out the whales lmao
.25/.50 vs 1/2 at a home game (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter natumes
- Start date
You have to lock them out, if you and most of your crew don't have the cash flow to follow them to their death and profit from it.
If people have no cash flow to track the whales down, they (the whales) may still win by bullying the table financially.
SJFCPK18
Flush
I see the logic in this assessment.
Dugthefish
3 of a Kind
Ya, but if the bad players don't win once in a while, they stop playing. I try to be happy for them on their occasional winning nights, because I know they'll be back next week and most likely lose everything they won tonight and then some.
Craig D
Pair
Leave the blinds as they are
Increase the buy in eg $50 buy in changes to $50-200 or half the big stark what ever is greater
This small change makes a huge difference, this allows your lower bankrolled players to play, and will increase the good players win rate without upsetting anyone
If your blinds are to high you will kill the game, if the blinds are to low the players will bet a little more to correct this and your game lives on
If you run a tournament first remember to use a different chip set
Have Fun
Increase the buy in eg $50 buy in changes to $50-200 or half the big stark what ever is greater
This small change makes a huge difference, this allows your lower bankrolled players to play, and will increase the good players win rate without upsetting anyone
If your blinds are to high you will kill the game, if the blinds are to low the players will bet a little more to correct this and your game lives on
If you run a tournament first remember to use a different chip set
Have Fun
byline9
Pair
This sounds like a great idea!
JL19
Sitting Out
Maybe set a blind timer? We have blinds move up from .10bb to .25bb to .50bb allowing players to top up when blinds change.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2020
- Messages
- 9,999
- Reaction score
- 14,660
If no one "respects the raise" it's because people are sick of folding and have come to play. A typical problem with NLH. I have the same problem when I host my friendly 25c/25c game that's mainly just a social excuse to get together. I've been slowly teaching them PLO to combat the feeling of having to fold all the time. It's taking some time but a few of the group actually prefer it because they get to play more. Pots are smaller because it stops the 1-2 maniacs who like to go all-in as the game is generally "stationy" and people want to see the turn and river cards etc. Not sure if this is applicable to your game but more cards make more fun!
Zr1
High Hand
PLO will have bigger pots, more people will see a flop and continue after. And the swings will be bigger. If everyone likes to splash around its a fun game. OP you can raise it to 1/2 but you will have the same problems just with bigger numbers. It may ruin your game. Talk with everyone and error on the lower side. I have played 1/2 2/5 5/10 but wouldnt want to be playing that at a home game with friends. Could u imagine a 1/2 game with $500 in the pot and “Johnny” who just comes to get away from his wife mis deals the river card Etc turns into a sh!t show. Or the guys who like .25/.50 who buy in for $50 and like the fact they have 4 bullets to rebuy through out the night decide the 1/2 is out of there comfort zone and dont show up anymore. Generally people just stop showing up instead of speaking up.
Last edited:
CrazyEddie
Full House
Playing with players who won't fold to a raise is more profitable, assuming you're any good at the game yourself. Playing with players who can fold to a raise is more fun, assuming you're there to match wits with skillful opponents rather than soak your buddies for as much cash as they can afford.
Raising the stakes won't make the players any better. They'll just lose more money, until they quit.
On the other hand, if you're desperate to have better players, then maybe your current players need to quit. You can try to teach them better poker, but are they even interested in learning? And if they are, will they even learn?
Raising the stakes won't make the players any better. They'll just lose more money, until they quit.
On the other hand, if you're desperate to have better players, then maybe your current players need to quit. You can try to teach them better poker, but are they even interested in learning? And if they are, will they even learn?
Zr1
High Hand
Well said. I would never want people i play against to get better lol
Our normal game is a 0.25/0.5 game that's social and a way for most of us to relax. Buy in is normally 40 - 100 or match 50% the big stack. Most of our guys wouldn't be comfortable playing a 1/2 so we host a separate 1/2 game on occasion. The 1/2 game is more of a serious game and some of the players who are fine at that stake or higher will sometimes pass on that game for the smaller and more fun 0.25/0.50 game. Our 0.25/0.50 game is also dealer's choice between NLHE/PLO/Pineapple. The 1/2 game is strictly NLHE for now.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
To appease this player, I might plan a 1-2 night outside of the usual 0.25-0.50 game. Then cancel the 1-2 game the day before when you have only 3 RSVPs. You'll never have to listen to his "suggestions" again.
Raising the stakes 4x is ludicrous and you will lose a hunk of players. Once you get into "casino stakes" a lot of players just as soon will play at the casino.
You could try doubling the stakes on a different night just to gauge interest in that. That seems like a more reasonable first step.
Raising the stakes 4x is ludicrous and you will lose a hunk of players. Once you get into "casino stakes" a lot of players just as soon will play at the casino.
You could try doubling the stakes on a different night just to gauge interest in that. That seems like a more reasonable first step.
Old State
Full House
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2016
- Messages
- 3,010
- Reaction score
- 4,811
I’ve found .50/$1 with a $100 max buyin to the be the best overall stakes to maintain a regular game. I have some old $1/2 poker friends that won’t play below that but our player base has grown much bigger and is more stable at the .50/1.
MuckingPro
High Hand
I host a $0.50/0.50NL + straddle button every week for 8-10 players.
There is no buy restrictions. 2 ppl buy in $50, 3 ppl buy in for $200, the rest buy in for $100.
I feel it's only fair to allow losing players to have a chance to make back their losses in one hand.
Keeping the blinds low allow players to continue playing comfortably at their own level.
Uncapping the buy in amount allows players to play higher by putting more at risk against players who also want to play higher.
Some in my group want to play higher, others want to keep it the same as well.
I say keep your regular stake so everyone can play comfortably.
Try to add another game night for those who want to play higher and see how many are in.
We play $0.50/0.50NL on fridays 8-10 handed and $1/2NL on saturdays but only 5-6 handed.
Strangely the $1/2 game lasts 3 hrs longer. I think that's because it's way more fun and the players are better and more competitive.
Where the other players just want to hang out and shoot the shit in a micro game and leave at a normal time.
If you're not sure, you can just ask everyone and take a vote since only one of your friends suggested playing higher.
There is no buy restrictions. 2 ppl buy in $50, 3 ppl buy in for $200, the rest buy in for $100.
I feel it's only fair to allow losing players to have a chance to make back their losses in one hand.
Keeping the blinds low allow players to continue playing comfortably at their own level.
Uncapping the buy in amount allows players to play higher by putting more at risk against players who also want to play higher.
Some in my group want to play higher, others want to keep it the same as well.
I say keep your regular stake so everyone can play comfortably.
Try to add another game night for those who want to play higher and see how many are in.
We play $0.50/0.50NL on fridays 8-10 handed and $1/2NL on saturdays but only 5-6 handed.
Strangely the $1/2 game lasts 3 hrs longer. I think that's because it's way more fun and the players are better and more competitive.
Where the other players just want to hang out and shoot the shit in a micro game and leave at a normal time.
If you're not sure, you can just ask everyone and take a vote since only one of your friends suggested playing higher.
That may be true, but it is equally unfair to winning players who earned a big stack. “Match the stack” games favor deep pockets who can gambol and eventually get even through flips. Over time if other players are not equally rolled they will get busted and the game will dry up.
A lot of folks allow matching half the big stack to balance the competing objectives Of winning and losing players.
detroitdad
Royal Flush
I'll play in any game. When I'm hosting, I allow a 100 max buy in, or half the deep stack. Whether my thought process on this is right or now, I feel like allowing someone to match stacks with a rebuy/add on is almost penalizing the deep stack. He "earned" the deep stack. Again, just how I do it. Honestly, there are only one or two guys that even add on/rebuy to half the deep stack. Most just come in for 100. Our blinds are .25/.50
Old State
Full House
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2016
- Messages
- 3,010
- Reaction score
- 4,811
I would highly recommend a buy in cap. Buy in has WAY more to do with how a game plays than the actual blinds. Some players having $200 and others having $50 seems crazy in your $.50 game. In a NL game those with the $200 have a significant advantage. If it was me I’d cap it at $100 and split the difference.
When I host, I allow rebuys/add-ons up to 50% of big stack (and everyone starts with 200BBs for original buy-in). Not everyone takes advantage but some players do, and I haven't had any issues. I do not like the idea of no restrictions on buy-ins/rebuys/add-ons in NL or PL games (limit is obviously different). First, it gives the advantage to those with deeper pockets as they can just buy-in and cover the entire table before the first hand is even dealt, or rebuy/add-on at any time and still be the biggest stack at the table. Second, it punishes the big stacks who have actually worked to increase their stack size (and therefore, their advantage) over the rest of the table.
50% of big stack I think is a nice compromise so you can't just immediately cover the whole table, but you don't necessarily have to start from scratch again to try and win back what you've lost especially if you are down multiple buy-ins already. Basically, it works to keep the players playing as opposed to them just thinking there's no way they are going to finish in the black so they choose to leave the game instead. Just my personal opinion.
50% of big stack I think is a nice compromise so you can't just immediately cover the whole table, but you don't necessarily have to start from scratch again to try and win back what you've lost especially if you are down multiple buy-ins already. Basically, it works to keep the players playing as opposed to them just thinking there's no way they are going to finish in the black so they choose to leave the game instead. Just my personal opinion.
CrazyEddie
Full House
Remember that if one person is playing with $50 and another is playing with $500 then both are playing with $50. Bigger stacks don't help you in a cash game. They only let you win (or lose) more money if the other person has a big stack too.
Old State
Full House
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2016
- Messages
- 3,010
- Reaction score
- 4,811
Huh?? They absolutely help you!
I will happily play with ten times more chips than everyone else at the table if I'm allowed to buy in for whatever I want.
In any one hand that’s true but in the bigger meta game it’s a problem if the short stack also has a significantly smaller roll. So if the short stack is adequately rolled, no issue. If not, big disadvantage.
MuckingPro
High Hand
Have you ever watched Live at the Bike, where they sometimes play $100/200nl and some players start with 100bb and Garrett Adelstein and Andy will start with 5-600bb? It's the same thing, players enjoy playing deep. Those players don't seem to think there's anything wrong with it. Players who think having a larger stack can buy in more at anytime.
Rhodeman77
Straight Flush
I allow rebuys up to the big stack, but most people don’t use it or rebuy for more than the initial buy-in max but less than the big stack. So for our $300 max starting buy-in a larger rebuy is usually $500-600.
this past Friday I added on $1k after getting coolered in a big pot. The big stack was over $2k (and on lock down) but the next biggest stack was a little over $1k and I wanted to be able to bust him if the chance came up, which it did, and I was able to stack him. That is the largest rebuy I have made in my game so far.
this past Friday I added on $1k after getting coolered in a big pot. The big stack was over $2k (and on lock down) but the next biggest stack was a little over $1k and I wanted to be able to bust him if the chance came up, which it did, and I was able to stack him. That is the largest rebuy I have made in my game so far.
Legend5555
Full House
That's a separate issue.
Having a big stack is only beneficial when you think you are better and want to felt other big stacks. Otherwise having a big stack means nothing since you can only bet in relation to the shortest stack involved in the hand being played (barring side pots).
Last edited:
It’s also beneficial when flipping against smaller stacks. When you can survive more coin flips that’s an advantage if you play aggressively.
MuckingPro
High Hand
Nice man! Imagine if you were limited to buying in $300, how many more hands would you need to hit before getting even? That's what makes poker fun, big swings
Easy go easy come!
Little bit of a flex there huh pro?
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.
