Cash Game Cash Game Initial Buy-Ins and Top Offs - What are People Doing? (1 Viewer)

[merkong]

Good morning. Right after finishing up our Saturday cash game we entertained a concern brought up by one of our regulars regarding our initial buy-ins and top offs.

During this discussion the player in question proposed that an unlimited amount for the initial buy-in be imposed since our game has evolved into one with more aggressive play and that within a few hands a player could be short stacked and therefore unable to play a more aggressive style of play. Additionally they felt that being able to top off to an unlimited amount of chips would further help to level the playing field. This player has rarely topped off in this fashion thus far.

We play .10/.20 blinds with a $20 initial buy-in and the opportunity to upload to half the big stack between hands. Granted the game has become more aggressive but since we’re growing the game organically we don’t necessarily want to scare new players off with larger buy-ins and top-offs.

So, the inquiry is simple, what are some buy-ins, blinds, and top-offs in your home games. We are considering increasing the initial buy-in to $25 and possibly considering changing the top-off to 75% of the big stack. We have not decided yet.

Thoughts?

Ken - just a home poker host in MN

 

[Nine_high]

My game is .25/.50 and I allow $20-$100 buy ins and add-ons. Most people buy in $40-$80 at a time.

I think a .10/.20 with a buying range of $10-$40 or $50 would be perfectly reasonable. I also think uncapped is perfectly reasonable as long as everyone knows what they're getting themselves into.

To your concern, if you are doing an uncapped buy in then rebuys and add-ons should also be uncapped. If just one player wants this and the others don't, you run some risk of changing the dynamic in a negative way where one or two players are buying in for well above the norm and the $20 players could feel like they're getting pushed around buy deeper pockets. It might be fine though if they're already ok doing match the stack.

If everyone wants to buy in for $100 you might consider increasing the blinds to .20/.50

 

[cpac54]

We play 0.50/1.00 mostly with some 0.25/0.50. Max buy-in is always 200bb and top-ups/re-buys to the size of the big stack.

 

[merkong]

Honestly, we’re not against increasing the buy-ins to as much as even $30 ($10-30) and the between hand top off amount.

Our biggest concern is that there are several players newer to NLHE and we’re trying to grow our game and create regulars or at least frequent flyers. We also want it to remain lighter and fun. Lastly, aside from slightly taking the initial buy-in up a little notch, nobody has claimed that they’re “so terribly disadvantaged” by the more nominal financial structure of the game currently. Lastly, the player initiating this discussion has almost never topped off between hands up to this point.

 

[merkong]

We play 0.50/1.00 mostly with some 0.25/0.50. Max buy-in is always 200bb and top-ups/re-buys to the size of the big stack.

@scoobydoobs

100-200 bigs and increase the portion of the big stack to 75%…

 

[LeLe]

100 BB buyin with matching the half the biggest stack played very much different from 200 BB buyin with matching to the biggest stack.

Better player are always going to try to match the biggest stack so they can take advantage just from one mistake from an average player.

As a host, people are more likely to lose big and end the game earlier so if you playing shorthanded (6 or less) you will want to take this into consideration as well.

Games I host are mostly

50c/$1 with $1 BBA
100 BB starting stack and rebuy at 200 BB or match up to half the biggest stack

$1/$1
200 BB starting stack with rebuy matching up to the biggest stack

The top usually end up in $2-3k end game whereas the bottom sometime end up in $7k upwards

 

[Nine_high]

Honestly, we’re not against increasing the buy-ins to as much as even $30 ($10-30) and the between hand top off amount.

Our biggest concern is that there are several players newer to NLHE and we’re trying to grow our game and create regulars or at least frequent flyers. We also want it to remain lighter and fun. Lastly, aside from slightly taking the initial buy-in up a little notch, nobody has claimed that they’re “so terribly disadvantaged” by the more nominal financial structure of the game currently. Lastly, the player initiating this discussion has almost never topped off between hands up to this point.

If it were me, the only thing I would change would be to increase the cap to $40 or $50 and see what happens. It probably won't change too much or it will evolve gradually to people exercising the cap.

I feel like newer players looking for light and fun for $20-ish are more likely to get burned faster and not return if it's uncapped and someone buys in huge and pushes them around.

 

[merkong]

Buy in up to 100 bigs with a 200 big complete rebuy or half the biggest stack…

Buy in up to 200 bigs with a match the stack…

Kicking ideas

@scoobydoobs

 

[merkong]

Again, we admit the game has decidedly evolved into a soft aggressive game on all streets with a typical pre flop raise around $1+.

We talked last night (3 this morning) of increasing the buy-in some and only minimally, at most expanding the top off amount.

I think the game is at a mini turning point where we really want to find the most current sweet spot between the casual, yet regular, players and the slightly more serious, also regular, players.

I am of the persuasion that the player initiating this discussion most emphatically (we’ve been planning on assessing) is thinking more about they’re preferences and style and not for what’s in the best interest of the larger game which, as the host, is my responsibility.

 

[Frogzilla]

During this discussion the player in question proposed that an unlimited amount for the initial buy-in be imposed since our game has evolved into one with more aggressive play and that within a few hands a player could be short stacked and therefore unable to play a more aggressive style of play.

It’s a cash game, it doesn’t matter one iota who covers whom. Always playing an effective stack depth of the smaller stacked player.

Just confirming though, you would always let players top up to the initial 100bb, correct? The “rebuys up to half big stack” shouldn’t mean 60bb if the big stack is 120bb. It should always be 100bb+.

The other dynamic which could influence is if the pots start getting straddled a lot pre so effective bb of that buy-in is halved. Then a larger buy-in make sense because people enjoy the strategy of 100+ bb poker. Or if the RFI sizes have gotten massive. People enjoy the strategy of reasonable flop SPR. Larger buy-in makes sense there too. I’d imagine your half the big stack scheme covers those instances though.

 

[200 Motels]

We used to play 25c/25 with unlimited straddles and no cap on the buy in. This did allow the stakes to grow organically as the triple straddle and sometimes straddle all the way to the button, was not uncommon. This also made the game get out of hand quickly with players having hundreds of dollars on the table with the occasional 1k stack.

To keep it sane reduce the craziness we changed it to $100 for your first and second buy in. Anything after that was $200 max for the rest of the night. It's worked out well so far with no one complaining that they couldn't match a stack since 800bb is pretty deep lol.

You could have it so your first two buy ins are 100bb, then anything after that is 200bb max.

 

[merkong]

Yes. A player could always rebuy (busted and complete new rebuy) at up to half the big stack, and between hands any stack (other than the largest) could add on up to half the biggest stack.

 

[Justin Olson]

My invite specifically says

$1/$2 NLHE
Minimum $100
Maximum $400
Or equal to big stack

We let em top off to big stack

 

[upNdown]

Yes. A player could always rebuy (busted and complete new rebuy) at up to half the big stack, and between hands any stack (other than the largest) could add on up to half the biggest stack.

You said yes, but I think you meant no.
If everybody buys in for $20 and I lose $10 in the first hand, can I top off to $20 after the first hand? Or, since the big stack has $30, am I limited to top off to $15.00?

 

[merkong]

I like this.

Our blinds our equitable right now with no immediate plans to make even a small change but everything else sounds like a reasonable, possible solutiion.

Initial:
Minimum: 100 BB
Maximum: 200 BB

Top off:
Minimum: 100 BB
Maximum: Equal to the big stack

 

[merkong]

Fair inquiry. Any player can top off between hands up to the amount of the initial buy-in or half the big stack, whichever is larger.

I think we’re making some progress on this issue as you’ll see in a post or two back. Thanks for the interactions.

 

[merkong]

@scoobydoobs

 

[SteveEH]

what’s in the best interest of the larger game which, as the host, is my responsibility.

The most important factor.

How much is each of your regulars comfortable losing in a given night? Your stakes should be designed around that average or something reasonable for everyone for a sustainable game. New players recruited should align with this too.

If not all are aligned, maybe it's time to split the games up for noobs and gamblers/seasoned players.

 

[scoobydoobs]

Thanks everyone for input. It sounds like:
1) lots of people ply 200bb buyins with top off to the big stack.
2) strong players will want to top off in order to capitalize on weaker players mistakes.
3) there is no advantage to having a bigger stack because the effective stack is equal to the smaller stack. The only difference is that mistakes can be more costly.

Here is my perspective, we don’t want to make this game predatory. If the strong players top off to the big stack, the lucky fish will never leave with any money. We’ll just keep adding on until they make a mistake and we get all their stack. For example, last night, one of the weaker players ran extremely well and was up to 600BB half way through the night. He made a lot of mistakes and lost about 400BB back. If I was allowed to, I’d have topped off to 600BB and gotten more of his stack. If we change the buy in structure, he’s never leaving with any money.

On the other side, there will be weak players who top off aggressively and end up losing a lot more money. Again, this is good for strong players but not good for the spirit of the game: fellowship and friendship.

Those are my thoughts. Some day, maybe we narrow our game down to a very competitive 6-9 players and do more aggressive buy in structure.

 

[scoobydoobs]

The most important factor.

How much is each of your regulars comfortable losing in a given night? Your stakes should be designed around that average or something reasonable for everyone for a sustainable game. New players recruited should align with this too.

If not all are aligned, maybe it's time to split the games up for noobs and gamblers/seasoned players.

This. Your stakes should never be so big that it is financially painful to have a losing night.

Merkong, how much do you think our regulars are comfortable losing? We already have some people quit after losing 1 or 2 buyins

 

[SteveEH]

To keep it sane reduce the craziness we changed it to $100 for your first and second buy in. Anything after that was $200 max for the rest of the night. It's worked out well so far with no one complaining that they couldn't match a stack since 800bb is pretty deep lol.

I like this idea to keep a "somewhat" friendly game under control. Someone else here forces a first 80BB initial buy in and a 100bb max top up/reload which I like too.

No cap is just bad for noobs/people that aren't gamblers/people aren't comfortable risking more money.

 

[upNdown]

Again, this is good for strong players but not good for the spirit of the game: fellowship and friendship.

Then you should play fixed limit.
No limit isn’t a friendly game.
I turned a boat the night with a healthy pot. I checked, knowing my buddy would bet, and then it was just a matter of figuring out how much to raise, so I could get the rest of his stack on the river. Just knowing him, knowing his mood and the time, I knew he’d leave after he got felted. Of course I didn’t want my friend to leave, but we’re playing no limit - what am I supposed to do? I took his stack and he left. And I did not feel great about it.

 

[LeLe]

The average player will learn and grow better as time goes by

The starting stage will be their learning growth stage ; getting cooler and making mistake is part and parcel of the process.

So, if your group is consist of mostly casual and beginner, one might want to keep the stake low and affordable for them.

You can generally move up the stake and deepen the starting stack as they grow

I myself is a degenerate, I am as happy to play $2/$5 stake as I am playing 25c/50c stake.

 

[Legend5555]

There are a few things going on here:

1. Being short stacked doesn't mean you can't be as aggressive. Actually quite the opposite. If everyone is raising big pre with lots of callers, the short stack has a lot of power to just move all in pre and win all the dead money without doing to flop.

2. Being a bigger stack does not grant some advantage other than being able to stack other large stacks. A big stack has no extra advantage vs a small stack because only the size of the small stacked player matters.

3. Buy in caps are designed to help limit losses of recreational players and keep them in action longer.

4. If the game is playing bigger than the blinds would indicate, and no one seems to care, then maybe up the stakes of the game.

 

[merkong]

First off, thanks to the forum. Your wisdom, experience and insight is invaluable. After messaging with my close confidant and adversary @scoobydoobs, a genius in his own right, this how I’m proceeding. He’s a reasonable man and sees the game much as I do.

I’m not in a position to make any changes.

It’s not overtly necessary and the optics would be overwhelmingly in direct opposition to the real vision for my game. We have a player pool of over 20 and spread a 5-6 handed two table cash game twice a week. We are continuing to grow it organically. I’ve made all the right moves since the game came back a little over two months ago. Now is not the time to take steps backwards.

We have been talking about starting a monthly deep stack tourney and in that vein, we may have to spread the occasional High Stakes Cash Game. It will not cheat anyone out of our Friday and Saturday cash games that we’ve all come to love and would provide a chance for people to very intermittently get their big boy gamble on. .25/.50 $100 buy in.

For now, the Friday Frolic and, as it will be known for moving forward, the Saturday La Familia cash games will remain intact. I am leaving the games as is; .10/.20 $20 buy in with anytime reloads up to 50% of the Table Captain’s stack.

I am considering the matter effectively closed.

About 15 years ago my wife and I ran a home game in St. Paul for about 5 years. They used to call me Godfather. Why? Because I built, provided, and protected the game they loved. And I intend to continue that.

Our game could sour in a hurry if the wrong play is made. No more noobs and newer players leaving or playing less often. I have all the right reasons for not messing around with it.

I believe if someone leaves my regular game it should be because the game is too small for them not because it’s too big.

All of the input was useful in coming to what I see as an obvious non-call.

Run well Poker Friends

 

[scoobydoobs]

Then you should play fixed limit.
No limit isn’t a friendly game.
I turned a boat the night with a healthy pot. I checked, knowing my buddy would bet, and then it was just a matter of figuring out how much to raise, so I could get the rest of his stack on the river. Just knowing him, knowing his mood and the time, I knew he’d leave after he got felted. Of course I didn’t want my friend to leave, but we’re playing no limit - what am I supposed to do? I took his stack and he left. And I did not feel great about it

I’m still stacking my opponents whenever possible in a friendly game of poker but we’d like to keep the stakes low enough that they don’t have to leave when that happens. The game is about more than poker. It’s about starting and growing friendships.

 

[scoobydoobs]

First off, thanks to the forum. Your wisdom, experience and insight is invaluable. After messaging with my close confidant and adversary @scoobydoobs, a genius in his own right, this how I’m proceeding. He’s a reasonable man and sees the game much as I do.

I’m not in a position to make any changes.

It’s not overtly necessary and the optics would be overwhelmingly in direct opposition to the real vision for my game. We have a player pool of over 20 and spread a 5-6 handed two table cash game twice a week. We are continuing to grow it organically. I’ve made all the right moves since the game came back a little over two months ago. Now is not the time to take steps backwards.

We have been talking about starting a monthly deep stack tourney and in that vein, we may have to spread the occasional High Stakes Cash Game. It will not cheat anyone out of our Friday and Saturday cash games that we’ve all come to love and would provide a chance for people to very intermittently get their big boy gamble on. .25/.50 $100 buy in.

For now, the Friday Frolic and, as it will be known for moving forward, the Saturday La Familia cash games will remain intact. I am leaving the games as is; .10/.20 $20 buy in with anytime reloads up to 50% of the Table Captain’s stack.

I am considering the matter effectively closed.

About 15 years ago my wife and I ran a home game in St. Paul for about 5 years. They used to call me Godfather. Why? Because I built, provided, and protected the game they loved. And I intend to continue that.

Our game could sour in a hurry if the wrong play is made. No more noobs and newer players leaving or playing less often. I have all the right reasons for not messing around with it.

I believe if someone leaves my regular game it should be because the game is too small for them not because it’s too big.

All of the input was useful in coming to what I see as an obvious non-call.

Run well Poker Friends

Couldn’t agree more

We’ll go up in stakes & buy-in structure when the time is right. Better to wait until everyone is itching to play bigger than to bump it up too early and scare away friends. La familia!

 

[merkong]

You’re talking about me aren’t you? Rude!

Lol

We’re going to get that 4am curfew approved before you know it. Just leave my name the hell out of it.

Love you Doc.

 

[merkong]

Oh and @scoobydoobs I told the Banker that I’m putting a mini Fireball in the freezer and the first time we zero out exactly I’m in.

Then we can both dodge bullets.

Godfather

 

[Bacon Dad]

My game is .25/.50 and I allow $20-$100 buy ins and add-ons. Most people buy in $40-$80 at a time.

I think a .10/.20 with a buying range of $10-$40 or $50 would be perfectly reasonable. I also think uncapped is perfectly reasonable as long as everyone knows what they're getting themselves into.

To your concern, if you are doing an uncapped buy in then rebuys and add-ons should also be uncapped. If just one player wants this and the others don't, you run some risk of changing the dynamic in a negative way where one or two players are buying in for well above the norm and the $20 players could feel like they're getting pushed around buy deeper pockets. It might be fine though if they're already ok doing match the stack.

If everyone wants to buy in for $100 you might consider increasing the blinds to .20/.50

How much of a difference is there in your playing when you are sitting next to a person with a much deeper stack? How do you get “pushed around”?

I retract my question after seeing a response by @Legend5555.

Good topic/question. Thanks for sharing.