Say you have a max buy-in of $40 , but the big stack at the table is currently sitting at $110.
This essentially allows a re-buy or top of of $55 instead of $40 when there is a player sitting on $110 ...
Cash Game Cash game reloading (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter wmv678
- Start date
This essentially allows a re-buy or top of of $55 instead of $40 when there is a player sitting on $110 ...
justsomedude
Royal Flush
There's also an element of fairness to limiting reloads/buyins to half the big stack. For example, if max buyins are $100 and some one spends 6 hours building up a $500 stack, letting some one come in and buyin with $800 isn't very fair to the chip leader, or the other players sitting with $100-$200.
Last edited:
Mr Tree
Straight Flush
Absolutely right.
I don’t think allowing rebuys to the top of the biggest stack would be good for the game for multiple reasons.
Emlemleml
Two Pair
Hmm, most of the games I've been playing and dealing in over here have only had a buyinn / rebuy limit in the lower end, no max. So if the game is 5/5 then you could sit down with 3k if wanted. Similar to 10/20 games, you could sit down with as low as 500, and as much as you want. Though, as you pointed out, the game usually do escalate.
But mostly it's played with an optional straddle anyways, which the next in line can double.
Although I'm personally against the straddle, I'm pro buying in big, this makes the game more complicated (nl/pl).
In my dream game I would rather play low blind, no straddle, big buyinn.
I've heard stories where people rebuys for 50k in a 10/20 game.
But mostly it's played with an optional straddle anyways, which the next in line can double.
Although I'm personally against the straddle, I'm pro buying in big, this makes the game more complicated (nl/pl).
In my dream game I would rather play low blind, no straddle, big buyinn.
I've heard stories where people rebuys for 50k in a 10/20 game.
Emlemleml
Two Pair
Btw, this is not a game of $ bills
The max buy-in is at least as important as the BB/SB to determine if a game is for your comfort level or not.
A 200-250BB max buy-in game is practically a game with double the supposed stakes IMO.
A 200-250BB max buy-in game is practically a game with double the supposed stakes IMO.
I would imagine that most no limit games use a max buy-in/rebuy since having a bigger stack is a huge advantage. In limit games, one can buy-in/rebuy as much as one wants as a bigger stack size doesn't have the same advantage.
I don't agree with this at all. The concept of being chip leader doesn't translate to cash. Being chip leader is only relevant in tournaments. Similarly, the idea of bullying with a big stack is a tourney concept. I think I have already argued this topic on here so I suspect many will disagree.
If someone is sitting on 600 BB and it took them several hours to build up I dont have a problem with someone walking up and buying in for 600 BB. If there is a concern about the game playing too big I understand that to some extent but in general I like the idea of playing deepstack poker. It is a different game.
My game is 20 NL so if it climbs up to being 200 NL I really have no problem with that. I want the maximum on the table as possible...well cuz I like gambling.
This is not true. The only thing that matters is the "effective stack" of whoever you are playing against. A player with a big stack in a cash game can't push you around because your are only playing for your effective stack. It's different than a tournament because there aren't ICM or bubble considerations.
You’re just advocating for an uncapped game, which definitely has its place. But to say you have a $20 max buyin then you but in for $100 when you’re stuck....just silly. Call it what it is, uncapped. Start out buying in for whatever you want.
I also don’t understand how you can argue that deepstack poker is only a tournament concept. Doesn’t matter tourney or cash, if someone can take your whole stack in one hand, the hand plays out differently than if they have far less than you. Much easier to play 20BB pots than 500BB pots cause there’s less decisions to make.
Emlemleml
Two Pair
Dunno what ICM is, but I absolutely agrees on that the thing to consider is effective stack.
Being deep is being deep doesnt matter if tourney or cash. I was saying in the 600BB example that I like playing deep.
But you said the idea of chip leader doesn’t apply to cash. If you’re on a 600BB stack and everyone else is short, then you can play lots of pots without much risk. If there’s a couple other huge stacks, you’re going to play differently, no?
Am I wrong considering there should be a difference between buying and winning/earning whatever BBs?
Honestly asking, I 'm no specialist.
Honestly asking, I 'm no specialist.
Fair enough. I personally would like to have the bigger stack and be able to force the other player into a decision for all their chips though.
I think the more important concept, for me anyway, is keeping the game reasonably related to the stakes. If you let people keep topping off to the big stack, you could quickly have a situation where two or three guys are sitting on 800 big blinds, and the guys who were comfortable buying in for 100bb might start getting screwed out of the game they were expecting.
I’ve seen guys sitting on $1500 stacks at a casino $1/$2 table. At that point, that guy is bullet proof, because everybody else has $200-$400. I guess in that sense, he’s got some security that he’s earned. But for the most part, if I’m the big stack at a home game, I’d rather see people put more money on the table - it doesn’t scare me off, it’s more to win! I’d think most big stacks would feel the same way, and not worry about what was earned or not. But it’s the shorter, normal sized stacks you have to take care of, as a good host.
If it’s a 1/2 game I’d say $40 min and $300 max is standard, otherwise like others have said either 50-75% of the largest stack at the table, in all honesty it all depends on the players if they are terrible then heck buy in for a $1k! It really won’t matter because they will spew chips anyway, great discussion!
Sure, in a public room aiming at profit it's different. There, they allow a ridiculously huge range of buy-ins to cater for (and get the rake from) anybody from short-stacked learners to intimidating sharks with a nice bankroll.
In a home game, intended to be fair, between socially related people, it's appropriate IMO to have a min to max buy-in ratio of not more than 1:2, and a further maximum of no more than half the big stack, in order to exactly "keep the game reasonably related to the stakes" in @upNdown 's words.
That's the first question candidate recruits are going to ask: "How much money are you playing? I want to be honest.
In a home game, intended to be fair, between socially related people, it's appropriate IMO to have a min to max buy-in ratio of not more than 1:2, and a further maximum of no more than half the big stack, in order to exactly "keep the game reasonably related to the stakes" in @upNdown 's words.
That's the first question candidate recruits are going to ask: "How much money are you playing? I want to be honest.
You're thinking in a tournament mindset...If you have a $1200 stack in a 1/2 game and everyone else has $200, you're still risking $200 if you call an all-in or put someone else all-in. $200 is $200, regardless of how much you have behind. Yeah, it might feel like less because you have a huge stack...but that doesn't matter since your chips have actual cash value.
This is much different in a tournament, since your chips actually increase in value as the tournament goes on longer (field decreases and payout increases).
No. Because the value of a dollar is the same for everyone. Just because I have a huge stack in a cash game does not mean the small pots are less valuable to me.
A dollar is a dollar.
The value of tourney chips changes depending on many factors. Stack size, blind levels, remaining players, bubble etc.
To be clear. Having a big stack vs small stacks obviously changes your strategy but I disagree that the big stack has any advantage. Short stacking in cash is a proven strategy.
It comes down to who is the better player. Good players will adjust strategy based on effective stack sizes. There is no clear inherent advantage to having a big stack in a cash game.
People wrongly carry over these concepts from tourneys. There is no such thing as chip leader in cash games. There is just being up or down on the night.
You can have a huge stack and still be down for the night.
Last edited:
yes exactly. all that matters is effective stacks. The guy with 1200 or 10k makes no difference.
All that matters for a home game is that the rules are clear and consistent. If I sit down under the impression that I can only rebuy/top up to $20 and then someone rebuys for a hundo, I’m gonna feel like I was duped.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
Maybe this is wrong, but I play in a 200 max .50-1 game. But then after the worst guy at the table goes broke and wants to throw down 5 c-notes, no one is going to object.
What do you do next when the best player in the game wants another $500?
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
I'm usually good doing 100 at a time.
This is why you have rules.
Emlemleml
Two Pair
lol, nice 
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!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
