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

Taghkanic

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
4,321
Reaction score
4,464
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
According to the host, people are raising 10x or more pre, but the field is still not narrowing. And they are calling large c-bets as well.

The question is, would they keep doing this if the stakes were higher?
 

MatthewTreeTree

Two Pair
Joined
Jul 5, 2020
Messages
459
Reaction score
357
Location
Live Free or Die
According to the host, people are raising 10x or more pre, but the field is still not narrowing. And they are calling large c-bets as well.

The question is, would they keep doing this if the stakes were higher?
The answer is: most likely not for the first few games, but some people would get bluffs through - and after that, like any poker game... it’s not up to anyone else but the players
 

Taghkanic

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
4,321
Reaction score
4,464
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
I’m curious what the host thinks given his direct knowledge of this player pool. A lot depends on their finances. The BINGO play may be more a function of low stakes than anything else.
 

MuckingPro

Sitting Out
Joined
Aug 31, 2021
Messages
39
Reaction score
35
Location
Toronto
This is a great idea for a wild game that will last 6 months.

The example you gave is for an open game in a casino. This does not compute for a home game with a relatively small player pool. You may as well have given their craps table spread.
Ya you know all about peoples home games and this does not compute to our weekly home game of 8-10 players for the past 15 years. It's ok that some people feel more comfortable always trying to keep the game small. Those people are the only ones preventing themselves from improving.

It's really fun to play with a bunch of people who play above their stake level and think 100bb is really deep and try to restrict it to that.
It's a great game when the players can't afford 5-600bb to play 6-8 hours.
And you think a game will last 6 months for a bunch of players who can afford and enjoy playing 5-600bb every week.
The only reason your game would break is because your players can't afford playing at that stake and they don't know what they are doing.
You'll know when you meet a group who doesn't complain about losing a few hundred dollars.

For younger kids who are just learning and don't know bankroll management, ok cap 100bb.
 

natumes

Flush
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
Messages
1,051
Reaction score
1,995
Location
Utah
Helpful info.

So, the standard opens in this .25/.50 game ($100 buyin) are $2-$5, or 4x-10x.

That’s a little bigger than what I’d expect, but not totally out of line.

If the stakes go up to 1/2 as your friend suggested, do you think opens would balloon proportionally to $8-$20, or would it be more like $5-$15 (2.5x-7.5x)? Would there still be multiple callers even at the highest open sizes?

Assuming the max buyin also went up ($300 would be standard for 1/2), would people buy in for the max or just play a very short stacked game—still buying in for $100?

There is a chance that upping to 1/2 would just make the game even more of a blind gamble, with players getting it all in on the flop constantly (due to stack to pot ratios). This would be even less fun for people who enjoy strategy rather than gambling.

Same questions for .50/1 or 1/1. Would changing the stakes actually change behavior?

The other thing I’m not clear on is how deep the pockets are of your player pool.

Are they playing this way just because they are stations/action junkies? Or because the stakes are so low that they don’t really care to be careful? Would their playing styles and willingness to rebuy change if their potential losses were much higher?

(Specifically with the any-two-to-the-river guy… I assume he is rebuying constantly?)

Another way to assess this might be to ask: How much money is in play over the course of the night?

If it’s say $2K total in a .25/.50 game, that’s 4,000 BB in play, or 20 total buyins. Not a lot for such a loose full-ring game, IMHO. If you go to 1/2 and people start nitting it up, there might not be much more money in play and much less action. Which probably would chase away some players there just to see a ton of hands and gamble.

Depending on the answers to the above, I don’t see a clear solution yet. I’d probably try bumping it up to .50/1 or 1/1, with an optional straddle, just to see what happens. Then re-adjust.

But it may be that the real adjustment at these stakes for the better players is just to play differently to exploit this player pool. For example, I might try playing even fewer hands, betting these much bigger preflop and punishing limpers with huge flop c-bets. I’d bring a big roll and rebuy as much as I could to smooth out variance, because there would be some ridiculous beats. Doing this (especially if there is another good player in the game also making life difficult for the stations) may either change the behaviors you dislike… or drive some players away.
I don't think opens would go up proportionally, I think they would be in the $5-15 range. If the game started at these stakes, I think there would be significantly fewer callers.

The first hour of the game is pretty good, but then the ATC players get a few rebuys in and it devolves from there. I'm not sure if raising the stakes will delay or speed up this process. So far the "best" games have been when a solid player takes an early lead, usually by busting an ATC player. If the ATCs bust each other, the game is in for a rocky night.

Buy ins would just further polarize with an increase in stakes. A few people will buy in for whatever max is set and a few will continue to buy in for $50 or the min.

I would say the pockets do not match how they are playing. I know for at least 2 of them, they will be tight after a big losing night. They are definitely action junkies. What's worse, is I have seen each of them play fairly solidly on more than one occasion, not always at my home game. I'm not sure the increased losses would change behavior more than just shorten the night.

The crazy nights have gotten up to $4k on the table where I'm using almost the full rack of $25 chips. Half or more of that is coming from 2-3 players. Which is the crux of my dilemma, the action players are bringing the money but also creating the tension.

I agree with your assessment of how to play against these players, but it defeats the intended purpose of a friendly and fun home game, and I would say the balance of players won't have the patience to play this way or will get bored playing so few hands and stop coming.

I'm going to try changing up the invites and see if splitting up the action players so they aren't all present on the same night changes anything. My latest observation is that they tend to feed off each other's loose play. I'm hoping having 1 action player rather than 3 will change the dynamics.
 

TurboKitty

Sitting Out
Joined
Sep 17, 2021
Messages
15
Reaction score
16
Location
CA
Keep the fracs. In home games, it's always funner to have more chips in play, so you can pretend to be a high roller. :)
 
Top Bottom