Advice: Raising Stakes & it Becoming 'About the Money'? (1 Viewer)

[Taxi500]

Hi All,

Been running a fun, casual home game of .25/.50c for about a year now. Group has grown organically from me scrambling to find 6 players every two weeks to running two tables of ~8 regularly now. This was my goal at the start as it allows for MTT's and flexibility in stakes.

My thought was to transition my Table one into a higher stakes game while Table two remains at .25/.50. Likely 1/2 or maybe .50/1. However, I am nervous about the stakes, wins & losses becoming a bigger factor than the core reason I started doing this: fun, friends, and enjoying poker. Our Table one .25/.50 game has a $100 buy in and plays very splashy. We always end up with ~$1,200-1,500 on the table at current stakes.

I hate when guys get real tilted and genuinely angry about losing because, from my perspective, it changes the vibe at the table. Guy that wins feels a tinge of guilt and guy that losses may be on tilt rest of the game and people can tell. My fear is that by raising the stakes it will amplify negative emotions without adding to the experience.

Is this a valid concern? Do any of you have experience in a stake raise going 'wrong'? Or would running two tables at different stakes enhance the experience for all by providing an additional option? Thank you.

 

[doublebooyah85]

Great question and interested to see the feedback. Couple quick thoughts…

1) You should definitely have a concern raising stakes. It could easily dry the game up if a few players have losing sessions.

1b) something fun we do that I have noticed prevents a couple late night players going all in and busting and also RAISING the stakes….at midnight when we been playing for 4-6 hours…everyone cashes out and we do a winner take all turbo freeze out. Start with 40 bb or less. Turbo blinds. No chops. Winner take all. Usually done within an hour or so. People lose minimal but can win big and it’s ends the game nicely. By midnight we are down to 5-7 players usually. And it actually helps keep the game from breaking.

2) Not a fan of hosting two tables for cash games. Lot going on with one as it is. But if you got 20+ players to call on. Run 2!

 

[rusmon]

Interested in opinions on this. I'm getting pretty close to where you are and have been having the same thoughts.

 

[Taxi500]

Great question and interested to see the feedback. Couple quick thoughts…

1) You should definitely have a concern raising stakes. It could easily dry the game up if a few players have losing sessions.

1b) something fun we do that I have noticed prevents a couple late night players going all in and busting and also RAISING the stakes….at midnight when we been playing for 4-6 hours…everyone cashes out and we do a winner take all turbo freeze out. Start with 40 bb or less. Turbo blinds. No chops. Winner take all. Usually done within an hour or so. People lose minimal but can win big and it’s ends the game nicely. By midnight we are down to 5-7 players usually. And it actually helps keep the game from breaking.

2) Not a fan of hosting two tables for cash games. Lot going on with one as it is. But if you got 20+ players to call on. Run 2

Some good points. To add to this:

I love cash games and think Tourney's are OK but kinda 'meh'. Tourny's are harder to run for me as we primarily play Thursday's from 7-11ish. We play on weekdays because my friends are even busier Friday/Saturday evenings with social outings and etc. Young crowd (25-35).

The 2nd cash game table has been fun so far. Lot's going on but I like that when the go home early guys peel out around 10pm we combine to one table and keep it going until 11/11:30ish.

edit: I'm now realizing that by changing one tables stakes our ability to combine at end of the night would be reduced & may push those guys to just leave too... becoming less of a fan of stake raise now.

 

[theshepherd]

Have your guests been asking to raise the stakes?

 

[doublebooyah85]

@ninedeuce once said and I bookmarked it bc it resonated so well “Healthy, lucrative cash games are delicate organisms, like orchids lol. You need to put in a bit of effort to keep them healthy, and it's not hard to inadvertently kill them off!”

 

[Taxi500]

Have your guests been asking to raise the stakes?

The guys that really love poker and have experience in casino's have. I'd say about half of table one has mentioned the future having higher stakes. I'm not sure when that future is or if it's in our best interest at all.

Will they leave/stop coming if stakes don't go up? Probably not. Would things be even better with higher stakes? Trying to figure that out. Cannot tell if the grass is greener, ya know.

 

[kmccormick100]

We've kind of settled in the $1/1 $100-400 as the perfect sweet spot between high enough stakes to be taken seriously without causing serious financial ruin to any one player over a few bad sessions. But local player pool demographics ultimately determine it as well as what people are "comfortable" losing in a session.

 

[Machine]

Is this a valid concern? Do any of you have experience in a stake raise going 'wrong'? Or would running two tables at different stakes enhance the experience for all by providing an additional option? Thank you.

Your concerns are NOT valid, IT PUTS THE LOTION ON ITS SKIN OR IT GETS THE HOSE!

Of course your concerns are valid, here is thing; Your the host and if you're not comfortable with the stakes then just openly explain that, and your reasons.

Bring up table xfers would also go rough and less likely to keep going. Also explain that you are likely to lose players raising the stakes.

Offer to put in a 'rock' at one of the tables, this is a straddle from the last winner's position; I put a locktight around one of the chips, it can be a $1. You'll want to put it in after the game starts, and the house puts it in, and it doesn't cash out regardless of who has it last. Action starts after the rock, at the end ask if they liked it.

Technically you're not raising the stakes and you're accommodating them say every other game.

Edit: Also you should introduce rounds, PLO and NLH, that would also slow down the want for upping the stakes.

 

[Rieguy]

I hate when guys get real tilted and genuinely angry about losing because, from my perspective, it changes the vibe at the table. Guy that wins feels a tinge of guilt and guy that losses may be on tilt rest of the game and people can tell. My fear is that by raising the stakes it will amplify negative emotions without adding to the experience.

People who have an issue with raised stakes will likely just mention it up front, not after they go bust, whereas I have found that people who cry and bitch when losing are the same ones that do it regarding anything remotely competitive. Fantasy football, video games, board games, sports, etc. Basically, they act the same with a $20 buy-in as they would a $200 one. Probably should just poll your players to see where their thoughts are at and go from there.

 

[Taxi500]

We've kind of settled in the $1/1 $100-400 as the perfect sweet spot between high enough stakes to be taken seriously without causing serious financial ruin to any one player over a few bad sessions. But local player pool demographics ultimately determine it as well as what people are "comfortable" losing in a session.

This may be the way... I don't want to have fracs the next jump so 1/1 may perfectly balance the itch to raise stakes and the fear of going too far.

Your concerns are NOT valid, IT PUTS THE LOTION ON ITS SKIN OR IT GETS THE HOSE!

Of course your concerns are valid, here is thing; Your the host and if you're not comfortable with the stakes then just openly explain that, and your reasons.

Bring up table xfers would also go rough and less likely to keep going. Also explain that you are likely to lose players raising the stakes.

Offer to put in a 'rock' at one of the tables, this is a straddle from the last winner's position; I put a locktight around one of the chips, it can be a $1. You'll want to put it in after the game starts, and the house puts it in, and it doesn't cash out regardless of who has it last. Action starts after the rock, at the end ask if they liked it.

Technically you're not raising the stakes and you're accommodating them say every other game.

Edit: Also you should introduce rounds, PLO and NLH, that would also slow down the want for upping the stakes.

Can you explain this "rock" thing to me again? I'm sorry i'm not 100% following but want to understand. Also, NO HOSE PLEASE NO HOSE!!!

People who have an issue with raised stakes will likely just mention it up front, not after they go bust, whereas I have found that people who cry and bitch when losing are the same ones that do it regarding anything remotely competitive. Fantasy football, video games, board games, sports, etc. Basically, they act the same with a $20 buy-in as they would a $200 one. Probably should just poll your players to see where their thoughts are at and go from there.

Likely true. I'm nervous my competitive types will go ape-shit if they lose $400 instead of just being tilted losing $200.

 

[Machine]

Sure, so you are likely familiar with an UTG straddle, right, so SB, BB, Straddle for typically 2 or 3 x the BB.

Start the game, on the first or second hand, toss in a $1 chip with a lock tight on it, so that it stands out. The winner of the hand put it out in front like a blind, but say the 8 seat wins the first hand with it. You'll have the normal Button, the SB, the BB, then in the 8 seat a $1 blind, the action would start on the 9 seat, and the 'call' would be $1, if you're playing PL then the raise can be higher.

So its basically raising the stakes, but you're doing it ad hoc, and only for 1 session, then collect feed back. The blinds are not being increased, so its hard to complain about that for the folders. The following session you ask if they want a 'Rock' in the game or not, and the main table can always be .25/.5 and the second table is always .25/.5 but with a rock in the game, IF the table wants it.

No one would pay for the rock, its house sponsored and its not paid out at the end of the game.

 

[SteveEH]

It is a valid concern, and your stakes need to be comfortable with your core group of players. There will always be outliers (recreational nits vs. experienced degens), but you need to come to a balanced spot, and recruit suitable players.

 

[Taxi500]

Sure, so you are likely familiar with an UTG straddle, right, so SB, BB, Straddle for typically 2 or 3 x the BB.

Start the game, on the first or second hand, toss in a $1 chip with a lock tight on it, so that it stands out. The winner of the hand put it out in front like a blind, but say the 8 seat wins the first hand with it. You'll have the normal Button, the SB, the BB, then in the 8 seat a $1 blind, the action would start on the 9 seat, and the 'call' would be $1, if you're playing PL then the raise can be higher.

So its basically raising the stakes, but you're doing it ad hoc, and only for 1 session, then collect feed back. The blinds are not being increased, so its hard to complain about that for the folders. The following session you ask if they want a 'Rock' in the game or not, and the main table can always be .25/.5 and the second table is always .25/.5 but with a rock in the game, IF the table wants it.

No one would pay for the rock, its house sponsored and its not paid out at the end of the game.

OK now I get it. Thank you for explaining!

 

[ninedeuce]

@Taxi500 definitely a valid concern about raising stakes. I'd be less concerned with increased tilt and more concerned about losses piling up faster for your weaker players. When the blinds go up, the better players take it more seriously and gamble less and the worse players will lose more money faster. The losers will stop showing up. If it's only the better players who are asking to bump stakes, this isn't as big a deal.

One of the online games I play in is an uncapped 1/3 game, but most nights ends up at 2/5, and sometimes at 5/10. We don't bump stakes until (a) the game is so deepstacked that shortest stack at the table would still be over 150bb and (b) we get consensus from everyone, and don't give anyone a hard time if they want to stay at current stakes.

So rather than have a dedicated table for the higher stakes, you could make it more organic and spontaneous, based on the player pool that night and whether everyone is already pretty deep.

 

[tentoesdown]

Kinda think you got a really good thing going and shouldn't bother messing with it

 

[Taxi500]

To add some progression to this thread I've realized a few things that I will likely utilize/experiment with. Great advice folks so thank you to those that have thrown me some good ideas/things to consider.

1) IF stakes are raised, err on the side of less than more (.25/50 -> .5/1 or 1/1)
2) Introduce a straddle later in the night to appease those who want some more action
3) Introduce the "rock" via @Machine

I need to be most concerned with my softer, more casual players wants because they're the core of my group. The top 20% of players wanting to raise stakes may be well intentioned, but harm us long term.

 

[ninedeuce]

To add some progression to this thread I've realized a few things that I will likely utilize/experiment with. Great advice folks so thank you to those that have thrown me some good ideas/things to consider.

1) IF stakes are raised, err on the side of less than more (.25/50 -> .5/1 or 1/1)
2) Introduce a straddle later in the night to appease those who want some more action
3) Introduce the "rock" via @Machine

I need to be most concerned with my softer, more casual players wants because they're the core of my group. The top 20% of players wanting to raise stakes may be well intentioned, but harm us long term.

Honestly, that top 20% of your players, I wouldn't care if they stop showing up unless they add a lot to the atmosphere lol. It's not like you don't have quorum otherwise.

So last thing you need to do is cater to them. If they are really the top players, they're just getting impatient with their win rate, but if they're winning, they'll keep showing up, even if they grumble a little.

 

[upNdown]

The guys that really love poker and have experience in casino's have.

Those guys already know where to find higher stakes games. So I wouldn’t worry about them. Hopefully they keep playing your game because they enjoy it. If they leave because the stakes aren’t high enough, maybe those aren’t the guys you want at your home game.
I know there’s all kinds of home games. But to me, the whole point of home games is lower stakes fun. So no, I wouldnt raise the stakes.

 

[upNdown]

The top 20% of players wanting to raise stakes may be well intentioned

They’re probably not. If you know some of your other players would have problems with higher stakes, they should know it too.

 

[JustinInMN]

Have your guests been asking to raise the stakes?

Very important question.

I need to be most concerned with my softer, more casual players wants because they're the core of my group. The top 20% of players wanting to raise stakes may be well intentioned, but harm us long term.

I would agree, with the other comment, I would be very cautious about trying to cater to 20% of players. That said, you could mention in your invite that you will have the usual 25¢-50¢ game but you will "take a list for a possible 50¢-1 game" and will do two different games if there is interest. Then if you have 16 players and 6-7 of them want to play the high stakes game, send those 6 to table 2. If it's truly just 3-4 players, then at least they will see there isn't interest in a full game and will stop pestering you about it .

 

[XBobdog]

You could try/suggest raising the stakes to .5/$1 when you combine the tables. People that play longer tend to more of the degenerate type and, if you start losing people because of the raising of stakes, it will be pretty clear and you can go back. If everyone seems to really like it, you could consider adopting it.

 

[Taxi500]

Before I do this I'm going to take note of who has mentioned raising the stakes and I'll know right away if they're asking because they're winning or for other reasons.

After these comments I am very heavily leaning towards keep stakes the same and introducing a $2 straddle later in the night or something along those lines.

 

[calfdemon]

I like the idea of the stakes going up when the tables narrow to 1. This way, anyone that wants to cash out can and doesn't feel "trapped". Your bigger spenders will stay for the higher stakes. Are any of your early leavers the ones that want the stakes raised?

Also, I believe you said that you host every 2 weeks. Maybe try the higher stakes for 1 game every 2 months. That way you still have your lower stakes games going regularly. If when you try it out, and its accepted, then you can convert to full time. If some players don't like it, they still have 3 more games until the next high stakes. If it doesn't go over well at all, then you can axe it altogether.

I host monthly and every 3 months I start off with a freezeout tournament and we do the cash game after. The rest of the time, it is pure cash games. Some of my players are not huge on tournaments, but because I only do it every 3 months with a cash game to follow, they all show up and play it and say they haven't done a tourney in a while. So it keeps it fresh. You can kinda use the same philosophy with the higher stakes game.

 

[Nine_high]

I would agree, with the other comment, I would be very cautious about trying to cater to 20% of players. That said, you could mention in your invite that you will have the usual 25¢-50¢ game but you will "take a list for a possible 50¢-1 game" and will do two different games if there is interest. Then if you have 16 players and 6-7 of them want to play the high stakes game, send those 6 to table 2. If it's truly just 3-4 players, then at least they will see there isn't interest in a full game and will stop pestering you about it .

This is essentially my take on it as well. Once I get a second table in my house, I'm planning to try running two games. One will be some mixed games at the same or possibly lower stakes, one will be Holdem only at the same or possibly higher stakes. Taking it slow.

I currently allow 2x straddles up to the button. Straddles are tame for the first few hours. But if the crowd dwindles to degens only we end up playing .25/.50/1/(2/4...).

 

[inca911]

Only one of these is The Rock….

 

[AWenger]

Can you explain this "rock" thing to me again?

I found an old thread i remember posting in. I think there's some good explanation there. (I was clueless what a Kill button was for in limit games.)
https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/whats-a-fair-rock-size-for-a-50-1-game.55676/#post-1073670

I like the rock idea, it can also be played as under the gun only. (when someone wins the rock, next time they're under the gun, the rock goes out as a straddle.) or UTG or on the button, whichever is first. So using the rock this way only raises the stakes every few hands, rather than every hand.

A couple other thoughts:
-you could introduce the rock after a certain time in the night, so the first few hours are normal stakes, then the last few a little higher.


- if you have a few players who want more action/higher stakes, they could make some bets directly with each other about their relative cash outs, so like if one guy wins 100 and another guy wins 50, The smaller winner would pay the difference, or half the difference, to the bigger winner. (Although that could get expensive.)

I think there's a name for this like cross book or something or other. I remember hearing a story where Antonio Esfandiari was playing in a home game that may have been 2/5 stakes but he had like a hundred times cross book with one of the players for their relative winnings/loses at the end of the night. (Cross book may or may not be the right term)

 

[JustinInMN]

After these comments I am very heavily leaning towards keep stakes the same and introducing a $2 straddle later in the night or something along those lines.

You know, I would be careful about this too. If straddles are more than occasional, then it does effectively raise the stakes of the game and your player base may have a negative reaction to the host encouraging this.

I think a "rock" as described is a good balance where it's one straddle every orbit or so. But again, you really want to keep players in the comfort zone for the game to thrive. And the awkward thing is, players don't understand where their comfort zone is until they have lost three buy ins in a night. If that makes them uncomfortable, they may not come back.

 

[Taxi500]

I bought an ST1000 and then created a "deal" with my guys: For $50 you get a guarantied seat at table 1 (which gets to use the shuffler). These are my dedicated regulars and the guys that like poker the most.

Being a man of the people, I'd ask for a vote from the members on what changes if at all.

 

[JustinInMN]

I bought an ST1000 and then created a "deal" with my guys: For $50 you get a guarantied seat at table 1 (which gets to use the shuffler). These are my dedicated regulars and the guys that like poker the most.

Being a man of the people, I'd ask for a vote from the members on what changes if at all.

Well if those guys have invested in the shuffle machine, then yes, they get a say.