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

Bacon Dad said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't, but I was talking about newer/novice players not myself. I think a lot of newer players perceive a disadvantage with a relative short stack. And I think legend is right, the real disadvantage novices have with bigger buy in caps is it will ultimately lead to bigger losses faster, which can turn them off from returning.
 
I feel that in a tourney setting small stack v. bigger stack can create a situation where the small stack will have to consider picking a “better” spot because tourneys are about surviving. In a cash game setting, there really is no bullying because a player can simply reload.
 
merkong said:
I feel that in a tourney setting small stack v. bigger stack can create a situation where the small stack will have to consider picking a “better” spot because tourneys are about surviving. In a cash game setting, there really is no bullying because a player can simply reload.
Click to expand...
You're right but many brand new players dont see it that way; they've bought in for their money and when they lose it the poker is over, the chips in front of them are it. Obviously not correct but some of my people are stuck in that mindset, cant shake it.
 
merkong said:
I feel that in a tourney setting small stack v. bigger stack can create a situation where the small stack will have to consider picking a “better” spot because tourneys are about surviving. In a cash game setting, there really is no bullying because a player can simply reload.
Click to expand...
Could you help control the variation with a closer min/max buy-in and reload? And is this really only a problem in tourney games and not cash games?

But what do you do when you all start with the same buy-in and someone has a lot of hot runs? They can accumulate a lot of chips and be sitting next to the guy who lost it to him. Should the smaller stack person move to a different table?
 
Bacon Dad said:
Could you help control the variation with a closer min/max buy-in and reload? And is this really only a problem in tourney games and not cash games?

But what do you do when you all start with the same buy-in and someone has a lot of hot runs? They can accumulate a lot of chips and be sitting next to the guy who lost it to him. Should the smaller stack person move to a different table?
Click to expand...
I wouldnt say its a problem. Its two distinct variants of poker, the big and small stack dynamics are important parts of tournament poker. Think that was @merkong point: cash games dont have that tournament pressure.

In cash games, no I would absolutely not move the small stack; if I was the small stack I would WANT to be there! Win some money back! But for this reason, many home games allow people to buy in for max OR half the big stack, or match the big stack, to make sure people aren't too behind.
 
...delete.....wrong thread for some reason
 
I'm running a bi-weekly .25c/.50c cash game with friends. We do minimum buy in $50 max initial buy in $100 with unlimited top offs. I think it helps keep people in check. The whole "Big stack bullying" concern has not come to fruition and I think it's more fun!
 
Bacon Dad said:
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.
Click to expand...
That’s the point right?

For me it doesn’t change at all in a cash game. If anything I want to get it all in when I feel I have the best hand while I have as much as I’m going to have at any moment so as to make as much as possible on the call.

Tournaments are a different story.
 
I have a possible solution that I’m floating to myself.

Presently our game is .20/.20 with a $20 initial buy-in. The rebuy or add on structure was “up to half the big stack.”

The same player that caused me to initiate this thread, just today, revisited the issue with an “as soon as possible” tacked on. Mind you, he rarely adds on or even plays terribly behind for that matter.

This is what I am considering; a person who chooses to add on would be able to add anything and everything from simply adding one chip (lol) all the way up to first taking their stack back to a starting buy-in (in our case presently $20) and *then* tack on an additional amount equal to half the big stack.

So for instance our hero is stacked to $80 and the villain finds himself stacked to $8.

Previously, the villain would only be able to take his stack to $40. Under the new proposal, the villain would take his stack back to $20 and then would be afforded the opportunity to add another amount equal to half the big stack, in this example and additional $40 for a grand total of $60.

That said, another option would just be letting people top off to the big stack. Two driving forces behind my laboring over this.

Initially, I believe in effective stack. A player isn’t necessarily greatly disadvantaged in a cash game by not being heavily stacked. The fact that that concept is lost on so many baffles me.

Secondly, my game is growing slowly and I do not want to eliminate nor marginalize, in any way shape or form, my inexperienced players or those that play partly as a form of fun and entertainment.

Thirdly, I do have plans for announced higher stakes games. The big shots will have their chance.

The funny thing is it’s only one player that makes this an issue, and as I mentioned earlier, that player rarely adds on. I think it’s more of a security blanket thing.

Lastly, I’ll mention an angle that people have floated where the big stack has earned his chips and that there is an angle of argument relative to that point.

Our game has gone from .10/.10 to .10/.20 to .20/.20. There is talk of the next logical evolution which would be .25/.25.

Whew.

Ken
Owner of the Moonlight Game
The Biggest Little Game in Town
 
My game is mostly like yours 10c-20c.

Max buyin in my game is $20. Min buyin is $10. Usually everyone buys in for $20.
 
After having hosted games with big-stack match, I have completely abandoned the idea. It's like everyone was just waiting for a double up to open all their wallets at once which is a big of a headache to the banker. That seems akin to changing the stakes mid game, especially over a rather random occurrence of two players playing an all-in pot. If everyone just wanted to play 200BB deep, we would have been better just starting at that depth and sticking with it. Why advertise a 100BB cap if it's going to be 200BB before too long anyway?

I have gone from 100BB to 120BB (when we play 50¢-50¢) or 150BB (when we play 50¢-1) buy-ins for my cash games instead of 100BB to take a step in that direction. I'm going to experiment with 200BB games for my first couple of 2023 events.

As for add-ons I always allow between hands up to the cap so long as the player is buying at least a minimum buy-in worth of chips (20 BB). (sorry, I'm not going to the bank because you just posted 1.5BB this orbit :p.) So if the cap is 200BB, they can add on any time their stack is under 180BB in any quantity up to 200BB. (Host reserves the right to eyeball it.)

If you get felted, you are allowed one "short buy-in" (under 20BB), but if you get felted after a short-buy, you have to come back in for at least the minimum. (This rule is rarely relevant, most players always come in for at least half the max if not the full amount.)
 
Frogzilla said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes. 100BB+

And we do not play with a straddle.

Thanks for the input.
upNdown said:
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?
Click to expand...
Top off to the original ($20).

And to consider slowly evolving and trying to meet changing and sometimes outlying desires, I’m considering allowing top offs to the original 100BB’s and then being able to add an amount equal to half the big stack.
 
We usually play 25¢/50¢ or 25¢/25¢. Min $50 max $100. Rebuys for same while bank is available. Can top up if $10 or less
 
NotRealNameNoSir said:
We do it this way as well, static value. Matching the big stack only helps the sharks in our game and I want to keep it more beginner friendly vs predatory.
Click to expand...
The “in our game” are the operative words here for me. I’ve stopped worrying about how much to let people rebuy for (for now) because it just isn’t a problem in my game.

They say you can’t bully in a a cash game and relative stack size is all that matters, but that isn’t always true. If you have two guys with big stacks who just want to battle it out (even with the best intentions) they can effectively bully the table and raise the stakes.

Anyway, I haven’t seen any kind of attempted bullying or anything with my current crew of payers. So if guys want to match the big stack for when they’ve got the goods, but they otherwise stay in line and play normal poker, I have no problem with that.
 
TonZaga said:
We usually play 25¢/50¢ or 25¢/25¢. Min $50 max $100. Rebuys for same while bank is available. Can top up if $10 or less
Click to expand...
I don't like this rule. So you can buy in for 200BB but then you can't top up until you have 20BB left? I would just jam any two when I lose a big pot then just to reload. Can't really play much poker when you have below 50 BB.
upNdown said:
Anyway, I haven’t seen any kind of attempted bullying or anything with my current crew of payers. So if guys want to match the big stack for when they’ve got the goods, but they otherwise stay in line and play normal poker, I have no problem with that.
Click to expand...

I've never understood match the stack games, at least in NLHE. There's one guy sunrunning it up to 1000 BB+. You match his stack. How is it fun sitting at a 1/3 table with like 5k? You're never gonna put all of it in play anyway. Please just go play 5/10...

And don't get me started on Texas livestreams. Those people just punt off 5k so that they can match the stack and reload for 15k. Just play a game where you buy in for 15k....
 
(EDIT TO ADD: Ooops I just realize I wrote most of the same stuff on this thread already last week in post #42)
TonZaga said:
We usually play 25¢/50¢ or 25¢/25¢. Min $50 max $100. Rebuys for same while bank is available. Can top up if $10 or less
Click to expand...

cpac54 said:
Are you saying that people can only top up if they’re down to $10 in their stack??
Click to expand...
I have the opposite rule, players can add on up to the max so long as they are 20 BB or more below the max. (Or $10 in a 50¢ BB game)

NotRealNameNoSir said:
We do it this way as well, static value. Matching the big stack only helps the sharks in our game and I want to keep it more beginner friendly vs predatory.
Click to expand...
I am actually surprised by this. I do agree with keeping a static cap. but I get the feeling most home games prefer to do some sort of escalator. More hosts than I would expect are saying they keeping it the same in this thread.

About 5 or so years ago I was doing 80-100 BB cap to start with big stack match. But the last couple of times we did this, it got kinda ridiculous that as soon as there was a double up, 6 wallets immediately opened to take advantage. Which just struck me as ridiculous. If everyone wants to play deep, let's just set the cap deep. So I did away with the moving cap and just started it higher 120-150 BB depending on the stake. Now I am doing 200 BB firm for my first couple events this year. We'll see how it goes.

I really see the rule going one of two ways.
1) Stick with firm 200 BB cap.
2) Go back to 100 BB cap or 1/2 the big stack, whichever is greater. That way the escalator isn't too easy to trigger, but still allows someone with a max buy in to double up to get even with a big stack.
 
Last edited:
The rule of matching half of the big stack at the table gives everyone the opportunity to have a stack equal to the chip leader in the event of a double up. I would discourage modifying that rule for the sole reason that it radically changes the dynamic of the game where a strong player can buy back in and potentially wipe out a weaker player who is having a good night in a single hand. Conversely, it also opens the door for looser players and maniacs to felt anyone with a big stack.

The trend in my neck of the woods is to spread the buy-in amount and cap re-buys. Players in the $1/$2 NLHE game can buy in for 100 to 150BB's and re-buy back in for 250BB's after 9PM (the halfway point).

I began running a full ring weekly $1/$1 game after the new year at the behest of a friend. Buy-in is 100BB's, nothing more, nothing less. A player who loses their stack can re-buy back into the game for 60 to 200BB's. Add-ons are restricted to 200BB's total, doesn't matter if someone at the table is sitting on 800BB's.

The reason for running it this way is 200BB's affords a player the ability to go after the bigger stacks by pursuing a deep stack strategy.

Setting parameters rooted in logic that is easy to understand is important when NLHE is being played for two reasons. One, players know the risks and cost involved before they sit down. Two, they help ensure the games survival long term.
 
JustinInMN said:
But the last couple of times we did this, it got kinda ridiculous that as soon as there was a double up, 6 wallets immediately opened to take advantage.
Click to expand...
Right. That’s not my thing. But fortunately it’s not how my game plays. So like I said, if one guy gets down to $75 and wants to top off another $100 (in a .25/.50 game) sure, go for it. If it becomes a problem at some point, I’d stop it. But that’s not where we’re at.
 
Mojo1312 said:
The rule of matching half of the big stack at the table gives everyone the opportunity to have a stack equal to the chip leader in the event of a double up.
Click to expand...
And this is part of what I don't understand. If a game starts at 100BB cap, why should anyone be able to have a stack bigger than the starting stack without winning the chips? If everyone wants to play deep stack, great, set the cap at 200BB, but then it's same issue. Double ups are admittedly less frequent the deeper a game is, but sooner or later it happens and now your game escalates to playing 400BB deep if everyone can do big stack match.

I guess I don't understand the dynamic that it's always imperative that everyone be able to cover everyone at all times. That's an impossible situation, but everyone being able to buy in for a cap set at the beginning and knowing they can win that much in a hand, that's reasonable and fair.
 
upNdown said:
Right. That’s not my thing. But fortunately it’s not how my game plays. So like I said, if one guy gets down to $75 and wants to top off another $100 (in a .25/.50 game) sure, go for it. If it becomes a problem at some point, I’d stop it. But that’s not where we’re at.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, and it's good your game is playing how the players are comfortable, that's what's most important. But in the interest of thinking ahead, at what point would you deem it an "issue," though? I guess I am assuming somewhere between where you are now and what I described.
 
In the cash games I play in most, 40-50 BB is the typical minimum initial buyin, and 150-200 BB are the typical maximums.

Either half the big stack or match the big stack are typical maximums once the game gets going.

(Note: I’ve never seen someone come in so late and so hot that they want their *first* buyin to be the “match” size. If someone arrived three hours in I’d probably hold them to the 200 BB for their first buyin — if only to disincentivize late arrivals. Never thought about it before.)

Top-offs/add-ons can be done at any time, up to that game’s max.

Now…

As host, I prefer either all rebuys be the initial max, or not more than half the big stack. Reasons:

It can be hard, longterm, to keep the lower-bankrolled players coming back if, when they are running well, they always get ganged up on by wealthier players matching their stack and playing BINGO against them, knowing the lower-rolled player will play too tight.

You could say that’s just poker. And that the lower-rolled players should want others to play too loose against them when they’re up.

But again, as a host, I feel some structural protection is important to prevent the disparities in my regs’ rolls to create a hostile or unlevel field. Allowing “match the biggest stack” can lead to uninteresting, all-aggro play, and chase everyone but your richest 3-5 players away over time.

IMHO it’s also just a more interesting game when you have to *earn* a 500 BB stack… rather than just buying one to bully less-rolled players, because the money doesn’t matter to you but it does to them.

Personally I can rebuy and rebuy as much as any of my regs, but there is at least 60% of the roster who are coming with no more than 2-3 initial buyins in their pocket, and leaving if they use those up.
 
Last edited:
JustinInMN said:
Fair enough, and it's good your game is playing how the players are comfortable, that's what's most important. But in the interest of thinking ahead, at what point would you deem it an "issue," though? I guess I am assuming somewhere between where you are now and what I described.
Click to expand...
Judgement call I guess. When multiple people start topping off just to keep up with the big stack, when the game starts playing noticeably bigger than it normally does, when the short stack guys start turtling up and aren’t having fun - I’m a pretty cheap bastard myself, so I think I’ll know if/when the game needs intervention.
 
JustinInMN said:
And this is part of what I don't understand. If a game starts at 100BB cap, why should anyone be able to have a stack bigger than the starting stack without winning the chips?
Click to expand...

That is a fair question, one that I have never entertained.

Seems sensible to me that a player in a no limit game should have the means to go after the biggest stack at the table, whether it is being able to re-buy back in for up to half the big stack or to come back in with a stack size that allows for deeper stack play against the bigger stacks.

JustinInMN said:
If everyone wants to play deep stack, great, set the cap at 200BB, but then it's same issue. Double ups are admittedly less frequent the deeper a game is, but sooner or later it happens and now your game escalates to playing 400BB deep if everyone can do big stack match.
Click to expand...

I am not advocating that players should be able to match the big stack, ad infinitum, although I do get your criticism of allowing a player to come back into the game for twice the set buy-in. I structured the game that way to make it easy to run the bank. It is important to note that we play in the basement of a bowling alley. The game runs from 6PM to 12:30PM. We always have nine to start, with one or two players waiting for a seat. (This doesn't include the odd player or two looking to join the game late.)

So to your point, yes, players early in the game are able to re-buy back in for twice the starting stack of 100 big blinds if they choose. However, whatever advantage they have in being able to do so is lost within the first couple of hours when other players are re-buying back in for the same amount. The 200BB limit does force the bigger stacks to tread a little more carefully because of the room it gives for deep stack play as you noted, but that is by design, giving the amount stack sizes are going to grow with 10+ players over the course of six+ hours. The formula of buying back in for 200BB's is better suited for our game then re-buying back in for half the big stack.
 
Last edited:

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!

Register

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Similar threads

DeeVee8
Tourney Two Buy-Ins?
Replies
22
Views
448
BGinGA
BGinGA
MrCatPants
What are your buy in rules for a cash game?
2 3
Replies
87
Views
3K
merkong
merkong
Dodger
Tourney Pre-buy Tourney Questions
Replies
2
Views
199
Dodger
Dodger
D
Tourney Adding Player mid-game, similar to Re-buys.
Replies
19
Views
294
allforcharity
allforcharity
4SUMERZ
  • Poll
Cash Game PokerStars Home Games
Replies
8
Views
630
4SUMERZ
4SUMERZ
Back
Top Bottom