Cash Game Cap Re-Buys/Add-Ons in Friendly 0.25/0.25 Home Game? (1 Viewer)

[PokerDogDoc]

Getting ready to host my first monthly cash game since moving to Missouri and losing my last poker group. My goal is to have this game be as much about socializing as it is about poker, and I’ll supply some snacks and invite others to do the same, though not required.

To preserve this “feel”, I’m considering capping buy-ins/re-buys/add-ons… if this idea piques your interest and you’d like to add your opinion, read on for more details.
——
Game will be up to 10-players, 0.25/0.25 (no antes, no straddles) NLHE with a min buy-in of $25 (100bb) and a max of $50 (200bb). No match-the-stack, but top-offs to 200bb are allowed any time. Just for completeness I’ll say that it will be a 2-deck, rotating self-dealt game of friends & acquaintances I know from another game I play in that runs 0.5/1.

(At that game, most players initially buy-in for the $50 min (only 25bb!) and reload endlessly for $50 or $100, some putting out $300-$400 a game.)

My players will be a mix of skill levels and styles. I’m probably the most experienced and skilled (lots of home game and casino 1/3 play), with others ranging from mild to moderately skilled. Nits, TAGS, LAGS, Loose Passives, Calling Stations, and 1-2 Maniacs are all in the mix.

I want to keep this game relatively low stakes so no-one loses their shirt and the socializing aspect is maintained… as well as keep the lesser-skilled players happy who want the experience and growth of live play but who will likely lose more often than not (and drop out over time if they lose tons of cash each time).

I know from experience that 1 or 2 of the Maniacs from the 0.5/1 game tend to bet aggressively to primarily to increase the effective stakes of the game, kind of turning it into a 1/2 or 1/3 game. Although exploitable by me, this tends to force the weaker, less experienced players (who tend to have smaller stacks) to fold out. Sometimes the Maniacs win, sometimes they lose, but if busted they just do endless rebuys.

I’m concerned that if I allowed unlimited rebuys in my game these players would change the feel of the game… the effective stakes would be much larger than I want, put too much money on the table, deplete my $2670 bank, and put the lesser experienced players under increased financial pressure. All not what I’m looking to have.

So, the question is:
Other than not inviting the Maniacs, do you think that capping the buy-ins/re-buys/add-ons to 600bb ($150) total per player would keep this in check and preserve the feel of the game?

 

[curlyhead44]

Depending on how close you are with the maniacs I would just talk to them and explain the situation, that if they can’t respect the stakes then they ain’t invited. I play a very casual 0.25/0.50 game that is all about the social element - if a new player came who was opening for 10-20bbs to make it more like a 1/3 game I would warn warn then not invite back

 

[curlyhead44]

600 bbs with the variance of that kind of play is plenty to disrupt the game*

 

[TheYeti]

There should never be a cap on rebuys in a cash game, I know I wouldn't play in that game. Just limit rebuys/reloads to the max buy-in ($50).

 

[Colquhoun]

Depending on how close you are with the maniacs I would just talk to them and explain the situation, that if they can’t respect the stakes then they ain’t invited. I play a very casual 0.25/0.50 game that is all about the social element - if a new player came who was opening for 10-20bbs to make it more like a 1/3 game I would warn warn then not invite back

Respect the stakes? If it’s no limit, it’s within his right to bet what he likes. That player shouldn’t be reprimanded or warned…it sounds like they prefer different stakes.
If that’s the issue, it’s a matter of not mixing those two types of players at the same game/table.
That’s not a player problem , but a host problem .

 

[Jimulacrum]

Having a hard cap per buy-in should help keep things manageable; allowing match-the-stack or anything that scales up will tend to make things awkward and eventually untenable for your shallower-pocketed players. (Having a total rebuy cap per player is a step too far IMO. Verges on babysitting.)

If you find that the degens are dissatisfied by this, consider having a small game and a big game on an alternating basis or whatever suits your players' availability.

 

[curlyhead44]

Respect the stakes? If it’s no limit, it’s within his right to bet what he likes. That player shouldn’t be reprimanded or warned…it sounds like they prefer different stakes.
If that’s the issue, it’s a matter of not mixing those two types of players at the same game/table.
That’s not a player problem , but a host problem .

Its a host issue to navigate but it sounds like this is a group of friends that want to socialize while playing the 0.25/0.25 poker that most can afford. If the maniac wants to hang out with the group they have to play these stakes, and it ruins the game to bet as if it’s 1/3 or 2/5 on this type of table

 

[Santa123]

Getting ready to host my first monthly cash game since moving to Missouri and losing my last poker group. My goal is to have this game be as much about socializing as it is about poker, and I’ll supply some snacks and invite others to do the same, though not required.

To preserve this “feel”, I’m considering capping buy-ins/re-buys/add-ons… if this idea piques your interest and you’d like to add your opinion, read on for more details.
——
Game will be up to 10-players, 0.25/0.25 (no antes, no straddles) NLHE with a min buy-in of $25 (100bb) and a max of $50 (200bb). No match-the-stack, but top-offs to 200bb are allowed any time. Just for completeness I’ll say that it will be a 2-deck, rotating self-dealt game of friends & acquaintances I know from another game I play in that runs 0.5/1.

(At that game, most players initially buy-in for the $50 min (only 25bb!) and reload endlessly for $50 or $100, some putting out $300-$400 a game.)

My players will be a mix of skill levels and styles. I’m probably the most experienced and skilled (lots of home game and casino 1/3 play), with others ranging from mild to moderately skilled. Nits, TAGS, LAGS, Loose Passives, Calling Stations, and 1-2 Maniacs are all in the mix.

I want to keep this game relatively low stakes so no-one loses their shirt and the socializing aspect is maintained… as well as keep the lesser-skilled players happy who want the experience and growth of live play but who will likely lose more often than not (and drop out over time if they lose tons of cash each time).

I know from experience that 1 or 2 of the Maniacs from the 0.5/1 game tend to bet aggressively to primarily to increase the effective stakes of the game, kind of turning it into a 1/2 or 1/3 game. Although exploitable by me, this tends to force the weaker, less experienced players (who tend to have smaller stacks) to fold out. Sometimes the Maniacs win, sometimes they lose, but if busted they just do endless rebuys.

I’m concerned that if I allowed unlimited rebuys in my game these players would change the feel of the game… the effective stakes would be much larger than I want, put too much money on the table, deplete my $2670 bank, and put the lesser experienced players under increased financial pressure. All not what I’m looking to have.

So, the question is:
Other than not inviting the Maniacs, do you think that capping the buy-ins/re-buys/add-ons to 600bb ($150) total per player would keep this in check and preserve the feel of the game?

Top-offs to 200BB should be sufficient limiting. Especialy when you dont allow straddles. I think the 600BB is a bit over the top. Let your maniacs play. It will be over all good for the game.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Its a host issue to navigate but it sounds like this is a group of friends that want to socialize while playing the 0.25/0.25 poker that most can afford. If the maniac wants to hang out with the group they have to play these stakes, and it ruins the game to bet as if it’s 1/3 or 2/5 on this type of table

To say it "ruins the game" is a subjective judgment. If they're betting too large for the stakes, that's a weakness, and usually a strategically simple one to overcome. It's not like what they're doing makes it impossible to play. Just different. Less casual, more gambly.

What you're pointing out is an inherent problem in big-bet poker as a whole, especially NLHE. Sometimes it doesn't become an issue due to the lineup of players, but "NO LIMIT" is right in the front of the name of the game. It allows for a super-wide spread of strategies, and sometimes that means people will make it $10 to go over a $0.25 blind or straddle and re-straddle repeatedly.

The attitude you're displaying is one I've heard and responded to many times. Essentially, some people like the idea of NL poker in theory, as long as people are playing in a relatively homogeneous way and no one rocks the boat too much. As soon as the boat gets rocked, it's the fault of the person who "raises too big" or "plays too loose," and certain players like yourself will clamor that they're doing something wrong or even should be removed from the game.

In reality, the problem is players with a narrow tolerance for betting variety playing in a structure that has maximum tolerance for it.

Limit poker is better for casual players. Always has been, always will be. NL is for degens and hustlers.

 

[mdt11]

I have a few thoughts.

1) You have clear buyin and rebuy/top up rules, which puts you ahead of 90% of home games to start. Clearly communicate those and stick to them throughout the night. I don't know how many times I've been at a game, a player asks how much they can rebuy for, and the host goes "um, I don't know, what do you think guys?" which sets off long discussions/debate among the players. The min/max rules you have laid out are perfectly reasonable and remove any chance for confusion.

2) As for limiting the total buyin amount across the night. People are adults who can manage their money how they please. What happens if someone runs into three coolers over the course of the night - KK into AA, flush over flush, set over set? They have to go home? Your min/max is your guardrail for players not losing their shirt, but they should be able to decide what to do from there. If you don't want players spending over $150 I would recommend lowering the stakes.

3) If you are going to police bet-sizing, play style, rebuys (within your previously set min/max range) etc.. you are no longer play "No limit Texas hold 'em." If you're worried about big bets, you could switch the game to pot limit, spread limit, or good old limit. But I don't know how you can invite people to play No limit hold 'em if they are expected to restrict their bet sizes.

If you think certain players will be turned off by certain play styles, and you want to cater the game to one player type, then simply don't invite the other player type.

 

[curlyhead44]

Maybe we’re thinking of different scenarios. I didnt think he was describing big bets or loose players, both of which can be fun at any level.

“I know from experience that 1 or 2 of the Maniacs from the 0.5/1 game tend to bet aggressively to primarily to increase the effective stakes of the game, kind of turning it into a 1/2 or 1/3 game.”

A player who doesn’t like low stakes could put $3 out blind every hand to turn a 0.25/0.25 into a 1/3 game. Which sure, could be easily exploitable. But the whole reason it’s a 0.25/0.25 game is half the group can’t afford 1/3 xD.

In theory it would be great to be able to host a 1/3 night and a 0.25/0.25 night so everyone is happy. But if this host only has the numbers to host a 0.25/0.25 game, it can lead to hurt feelings to exclude a couple 1/3 interested friends!

 

[chippitydoodah]

Go with a $25 spread limit.

 

[Jimulacrum]

A player who doesn’t like low stakes could put $3 out blind every hand to turn a 0.25/0.25 into a 1/3 game. Which sure, could be easily exploitable. But the whole reason it’s a 0.25/0.25 game is half the group can’t afford 1/3 xD.

They don't have to afford $1/3, just $0.25/0.25 with 12BB worth of free money generously donated to every pot. They still only have to pay $0.50 to see a whole orbit of openers. At a full table, the maniac is burning an entire min buy-in every orbit for no real benefit, just a pure donation.

What people get ornery about is that they can't limp anymore. Can't flat raises with speculative hands. It forces them to play bigger pots and adjust to a different spread of bet sizes than they're used to. I used to be the type of player who got upset about this kind of thing. Bristled at people straddling, making oversized raises, playing blind, etc.

Then I realized I was wrong. I was upset because my game was full of weaknesses that their style of play exposed. I felt so strategically secure in my previous play style that when players came along with a style that made my style no better than a loose-passive noob's, I felt attacked. In reality, I'd just sat down at a gold vein that I didn't understand how to mine. When I came to terms with that, learning to adjust to it advanced my skill in the game immeasurably.

 

[curlyhead44]

I agree with you overall, and on a personal level don’t find any play to be problematic, just relate / commiserate with trying to maintain a home game with a wide range of skills and bankrolls. Agree that changing it to some version of limit makes sense.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I agree with you overall, and on a personal level don’t find any play to be problematic, just relate / commiserate with trying to maintain a home game with a wide range of skills and bankrolls. Agree that changing it to some version of limit makes sense.

It's definitely a challenge, especially the hurdle of getting NLHE-only players to dip their toes in limit, whether it's LHE or a mix.

People get really attached to the novelty of making big, bold plays in NL—making a huge check-raise with aces, trapping people for their whole stack with a flopped boat, or shoving for the last-ditch bluff when your draw whiffs. Limit is just different. But once you give it a chance to get rolling, it's a better format, for casual players in particular.

It's especially good at keeping degens and maniacs at bay. Rebuy for 1,000 or even 10,000 big bets; it changes nothing from hand to hand. Blind raise every other pot and you'll quickly go broke. All the strategies that rely on pushing shallower-pocketed players around in NL become toothless and wasteful.

 

[Kam]

Agree with the majority of the above, I wouldn’t cap buy ins.

I’ve started a new home game this year and rotate between 2 stakes in a monthly game:

$0.25/$0.5, $50-$100 buy in.
$0.5/$1, $100-$200 buy in.

Both match up to half the largest stack. Half my players prefer the smaller, the other half have talked about increasing the stakes, maybe $2/$3 even $2/$5. I allow rebuy / top off to half the largest stack anytime. For the first 3 hours or so, that’s still usually the max buy in unless someone triples up early.

I’ll keep the 0.25/0.5 in the rotation as my low stakes ‘friendly’ game and also use it to introduce circus games eventually. If I can get enough in the higher stakes rotation then I’ll bump that up - however only when I get a solid 6 players confirmed for each. Until then will keep it where it’s at as it’s still a mix of players who play both games.

Maybe not ideal to rotate stakes, however working so far for me.

I get the ‘respect the stakes’, however if someone drops $1G in a $1 big blind game because they’re being hyper aggressive, then that’s spread to the rest of the table. Good to have a healthy mix.

Need a couple of K9rs, a couple of Roca’s and 4 solid players I believe is the ideal ‘PCF’ approved player mix. I have yet to find that…

GL!

 

[PokerDogDoc]

Thanks to all who’ve replied… a nice variety of thoughtful responses which is why I’ve put it to my PCF community in the first place. Much appreciated!

Having read all of your posts and done some more reflection, I realize that I may be trying to force the game to be something that is impossible: BOTH a welcoming, social game designed to be a relaxed, skill-building platform for the less-experienced players who at this point would benefit from a “milder game” where they can be mentored a bit AND a game with a wide variety of player styles, some of whom may be more focused on their hourly win-rate and/or higher stakes than socializing.

Both games are fine and serve their own purposes, but probably incompatible when put together.

Since my players all prefer NLHE (at least for now!), heres my solution:

-I’ll offer the lower stakes 0.25/0.25 NLHE “social cash game” mentioned above (but with unlimited rebuys) to those that I think would like that

-AND, alternate that every other month with-

a $50 buy-in T100 tourney (unlimited rebuys during the rebuy period) where all are invited. Let’s get some high denom chips from a different set on the felt, everyone can play to their own style and risk as much as they desire via multiple rebuys, and see how they stack up against each other to win a portion of a sizable prize pool.

In the meantime, I’ll continue my exploitative play vs. the maniacs and nits whenever we cross paths in the larger cash games or casinos.

Thanks again for all the feedback!

 

[Jimulacrum]

Best of luck! Update us!

 

[Tarsus4]

Limiting buy-ins has been done at least once in a recorded show among pros that I'm aware of (Poker After Dark S12E08, where they called it a "hybrid cash format"). I don't like the implications here from other members that this is somehow illegitimate or "not NLHE", it's just not what you're used to.

Still, I would be careful doing this in a home game, where the challenge is usually getting people to STAY at the table. I agree with the others that it sounds like some of your players aren't really comfortable playing no-limit correctly.

 

[SteveEH]

IMO it comes down to degens beating on recreational players.

If you aren't gonna do separate games with different groups and stakes, some ways you can protect the rec players:

- pot limit
- pot limit pre flop/no limit post flop
- 100bb max buy in
- allow buy ins less than 100bb

I wouldn't put a cap on # of buy ins, but I set expectations of the recs for a min of 3 for the night.

 

[Goosefraba]

So before moving my group to a cash game we would play a tournament style $20 buyin and $20 rebuys with 50 dice chips winner take all at the end of the night with the occasional split pots. Most players would stop at two buyins and we would rarely have the third buyin. The game is mostly for socializing with some poker. Going with the money most would want to put forth I leaned to a .25/.25 cash game with $25 buyin and knowing how much most were willing to risk for the night I capped each player at $75 for the night. I’ve played around with everyone starting with the $25 buyin but have loosened it up a bit to where players can start with anything up to the $75 max. Everyone still starts with $25 and we’ve yet to hit the $75 max.

 

[grantcm05]

I personally like to do MTS with my home games, you can make some of the players feel more isolated with how comfortable they are to buy in, but the players who only want to commit one buy in just play a little tighter than the rest.

 

[PokerDogDoc]

I personally like to do MTS with my home games, you can make some of the players feel more isolated with how comfortable they are to buy in, but the players who only want to commit one buy in just play a little tighter than the rest.

Thanks for your opinion and input, but on this point I disagree.

I’m in the camp that believes match-the-stack (and straddles, for that matter) allows the game to play way above the actual stakes, is much better for pros and regs, and disproportionately hurts the recs.

I know it’s a contested point with strong opinions on both sides… as evidenced by this thread from a few months ago:
https://www.pokerchipforum.com/threads/match-the-stack-debate.131936/

I agree with the OP of that thread @Old State and @NotRealNameNoSir who commented there.

Even Doug Polk doesn’t care for it at his own card room, The Lodge, where they allow it at the higher stakes:

But I also respect everyone’s right to their opinion and to run their game the way they want—it’s just not for me.