Do you think “maniacs” ruin games? (1 Viewer)

[Jimulacrum]

^ - This is the best explanation I have ever read.

<Rant>
When people complain that "they never fold" I always hear "they won't let me bully them."

The beauty of poker is there are many strategies and may paths to victory and defeat. For every strategy there is a counter-strategy. The more strategies you know the better player you are. But some people saw one big raise push a guy off the best hand once on TV and don't want to learn anything else. Instead they are doomed to just complain they can't handle certain opponents.
</Rant>

That's how I feel about it. If you've only ever learned how to counter one or two types of players, you haven't really learned poker. Maniacs, LAGs, and other wild-and-loose types are common across the poker landscape. To win at poker, you have to learn to neutralize them.

The trouble is that even many of the better players out there have only ever learned a basic TAG approach to NLHE. "Tight is right." And that strategy works in a limited way. You can beat the crap out of most lineups of recreational gamblers and loose-passive players with it. But it's a beginners' strategy, designed specifically to leverage the disproportionate preflop equity matchups in NLHE, especially against loose-passive players, and make post-flop decisions simple.

Many TAG players have a tendency to believe that there's just that one correct way to play NLHE, and they learned it already, so why expand? When a maniac or a LAG comes along and makes their lives difficult, they just get upset and stressed out, not sure how to counter him. It's similar to how some TAGs react to a player straddling or raising blind. The counter-strategy may require loosening up, sometimes significantly, and they're just not willing to do it. So they get mad instead and gripe about how the maniac is "ruining the game."

 

[Ghoti]

Love a good maniac. Just have to adjust and/or join in.

 

[hdgeno]

That's how I feel about it. If you've only ever learned how to counter one or two types of players, you haven't really learned poker. Maniacs, LAGs, and other wild-and-loose types are common across the poker landscape. To win at poker, you have to learn to neutralize them.

The trouble is that even many of the better players out there have only ever learned a basic TAG approach to NLHE. "Tight is right." And that strategy works in a limited way. You can beat the crap out of most lineups of recreational gamblers and loose-passive players with it. But it's a beginners' strategy, designed specifically to leverage the disproportionate preflop equity matchups in NLHE, especially against loose-passive players, and make post-flop decisions simple.

Many TAG players have a tendency to believe that there's just that one correct way to play NLHE, and they learned it already, so why expand? When a maniac or a LAG comes along and make their lives difficult, they just get upset and stressed out, not sure how to counter him. It's similar to how some TAGs react to a player straddling or raising blind. The counter-strategy may require loosening up, sometimes significantly, and they're just not willing to do it. So they get mad instead and gripe about how the maniac is "ruining the game."

You have made two great posts in this thread, and though I don’t play a lot anymore, it takes me back to when the game I hosted was at its peak.

There were three players that were total maniacs, and at first it really frustrated me playing against them. I was playing a lot online at the time, mostly a TAG player. It didn’t take me long to realize that strategy was going to make me a losing player against these three guys. Once I started to adjust and change my ranges against them it began to show up in my bankroll. Pots against them were usually big, definitely got swingy to tangle with them, but over time I certainly made some good money off of them.

In our case, these guys were certainly good for my game. All three of them eventually moved away and my game dried up as a result. I live in a small community, with a tiny poker playing population. We needed the money from them to keep the game going.

I also played a few times with another group, who stopped inviting me because of the LAG style I played against them. They were easy money, having played as a closed group for years, and everyone there played a very passive weak game. It was unfortunate that they didn’t want me there, the stakes were small but it was fun to play as I was almost certain to make money each time out. Looking back I should maybe have played weaker to stay in the group, though I believe their game died off too.

 

[Kain8]

Is it utterly maddening seeing a maniac raise, bet, and just disrupt the "normal" flow of your game? It can be somewhat at first.

You need to turn that thinking on its head though. Look at the maniac and picture them as the quintessential money bag with a big dollar sign on it. Because that's what poker is about, adjusting to your opponents.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I also played a few times with another group, who stopped inviting me because of the LAG style I played against them. They were easy money, having played as a closed group for years, and everyone there played a very passive weak game. It was unfortunate that they didn’t want me there, the stakes were small but it was fun to play as I was almost certain to make money each time out. Looking back I should maybe have played weaker to stay in the group, though I believe their game died off too.

I've been the LAG in a small pond full of weak players on quite a few occasions. It definitely can be a threat to the longevity of the game.

Though I'm never short on criticism for people who refuse to adjust and instead whine about other people "playing wrong," it's true that an effective LAG strategy can utterly crush some games. Certain players will almost never win, and the game will stop being fun.

I do sympathize with hosts or players who want to keep their game together when it seems threatened by such a player. There's really little you can do to stifle it from a game-management perspective. Either the hyper-aggressive player has to go, or the other players need to adjust.

 

[JustinInMN]

I do sympathize with hosts or players who want to keep their game together when it seems threatened by such a player. There's really little you can do to stifle it from a game-management perspective. Either the hyper-aggressive player has to go, or the other players need to adjust.

Honestly if players are electing to exclude players for playing an undesirable strategy, imo the collapse of the game is already in progress.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Honestly if players are electing to exclude players for playing an undesirable strategy, imo the collapse of the game is already in progress.

Pretty much, yeah. Even if they kick that dude out, they'll always have to worry that a new player will come along who's able to beat them just as badly, or one of their existing players will study up and turn shark on them. And what'll they do, keep kicking out anyone who wins "too much"? Not good.

This is a great example of how NLHE is such a bad game for casual recreational players. When someone comes along who plays at a much higher level than everyone else, it's an absolute slaughter. Without significantly upping their game, the other players don't even have a chance.

Switch to limit anything, though, and it's a different picture. The recs may not know it yet, but they'll have a lot more fun and enjoy a much better overall game (and lower loss rates) than they would in NLHE.

 

[Beakertwang]

I could compare it to a recreational baseball league, where there’s a pitcher who has an above average fastball, a terrible hanging slider that he insists on throwing, and is terribly wild. Sure, the more skilled hitters can exploit him for big hits, and can get out of the way, or take the occasional HBP, which they’re used to. But the less experienced guys might not be interested in stepping into the box against him, being worried that they’re going to take one off the noggin. Is a bad pitcher good for the game? Depends how you look at it, I guess.

 

[Mangatang]

...increases variance and basically forces you to wait until you hit a solid hand to call him down which is kind of boring in my opinion.

This is precisely why I prefer limit cash games. There's a lot more action, you see more show downs, and you can't just push all-in all the time. NL is suited for tournaments, but NL cash games are boring, imo.

 

[Sunshine]

That's how I feel about it. If you've only ever learned how to counter one or two types of players, you haven't really learned poker. Maniacs, LAGs, and other wild-and-loose types are common across the poker landscape. To win at poker, you have to learn to neutralize them.

The trouble is that even many of the better players out there have only ever learned a basic TAG approach to NLHE. "Tight is right." And that strategy works in a limited way. You can beat the crap out of most lineups of recreational gamblers and loose-passive players with it. But it's a beginners' strategy, designed specifically to leverage the disproportionate preflop equity matchups in NLHE, especially against loose-passive players, and make post-flop decisions simple.

Many TAG players have a tendency to believe that there's just that one correct way to play NLHE, and they learned it already, so why expand? When a maniac or a LAG comes along and makes their lives difficult, they just get upset and stressed out, not sure how to counter him. It's similar to how some TAGs react to a player straddling or raising blind. The counter-strategy may require loosening up, sometimes significantly, and they're just not willing to do it. So they get mad instead and gripe about how the maniac is "ruining the game."

I think you're making a "straw man" out of the argument that maniacs ruin a game.

Maniacs, essentially by definition, decouple their hand value (to say nothing of their perception of YOUR hand value) from their action. The counter to a maniac could be described not as an expansion of your game, but a regression of it. While some may feel that the presence of a maniac adds interesting psychological elements to a game, they can force the response of drastically simplified analysis. Nobody is (or should be) counting the combinations in the range of a maniac, or considering portions of their range to determine your bet size, or attempting to extract information from THEIR bet size, or ... When the range of an opponent is basically ATC and their bet size is mathematically silly under any circumstances, all you have left to do is compare your hand to random and, if it is above average, decide how much volatility you're prepared to live with. Some find more involved analysis to be the interesting part of the game.

And, I don't know if it's true TAGs who really struggle with maniacs. Wouldn't they be the ones who play rarely, but when they do, are likely to get a lot in the middle pf, when they have the benefit of the equity advantages in HE? Seems like the main characteristics that would yield trouble against a maniac are passive (call instead of raise, especially pf) and/or weak (fold, or fail to bet, when decent).

Now, I'm not sure I buy the argument myself as they can be both fun ("look at Johnny go!") and profitable. Hell, if I'm in a casino, I hope all the maniacs escaped the ward, stole a bus, came straight to my table and play with their tongues 'cause they still have the jackets on. But, they can make the game simpler (and wilder). They don't necessarily "expand" it. I think people are actually saying something when they make this argument and it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

And if by "correct" you mean mathematically optimal against unknown fields, then there IS only one correct way to play NLHE and it is TAG! Viva Harrington!

 

[Jimulacrum]

I think you're making a "straw man" out of the argument that maniacs ruin a game.

Maniacs, essentially by definition, decouple their hand value (to say nothing of their perception of YOUR hand value) from their action. The counter to a maniac could be described not as an expansion of your game, but a regression of it. While some may feel that the presence of a maniac adds interesting psychological elements to a game, they can force the response of drastically simplified analysis. Nobody is (or should be) counting the combinations in the range of a maniac, or considering portions of their range to determine your bet size, or attempting to extract information from THEIR bet size, or ... When the range of an opponent is basically ATC and their bet size is mathematically silly under any circumstances, all you have left to do is compare your hand to random and, if it is above average, decide how much volatility you're prepared to live with. Some find more involved analysis to be the interesting part of the game.

And, I don't know if it's true TAGs who really struggle with maniacs. Wouldn't they be the ones who play rarely, but when they do, are likely to get a lot in the middle pf, when they have the benefit of the equity advantages in HE? Seems like the main characteristics that would yield trouble against a maniac are passive (call instead of raise, especially pf) and/or weak (fold, or fail to bet, when decent).

Now, I'm not sure I buy the argument myself as they can be both fun ("look at Johnny go!") and profitable. Hell, if I'm in a casino, I hope all the maniacs escaped the ward, stole a bus, came straight to my table and play with their tongues 'cause they still have the jackets on. But, they can make the game simpler (and wilder). They don't necessarily "expand" it. I think people are actually saying something when they make this argument and it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.

You make a fair point about it simplifying analysis. If we're talking about a true maniac (as opposed to a skilled LAG), it does simplify things in the sense that you have to revert to basic math to estimate if you're ahead of his excessively wide range. But you do need to know to do that, apply it properly, and have the guts to go with it instead of folding too much out of fear. There's a lot to be said for that.

The thing is, a lot of the players who complain about the maniacs aren't the ones who are able to do most of the advanced analysis you're talking about, or adjust for crazy wide ranges, or any of it. If they were, they'd be able to adjust and crush the maniac. But they're the ones who play by rote. They learn hand-value charts and use rules of thumb about bet sizing, stuff like that. These are the players who get totally thrown off their game by the maniac, and the ones who need to expand their strategy repertoires to beat him. They're also a goldmine for anyone who is good at playing exploitatively.

And if by "correct" you mean mathematically optimal against unknown fields, then there IS only one correct way to play NLHE and it is TAG! Viva Harrington!

Fields stop being unknown within the first orbit of every game you play. So by all means, default to TAG for your first several hands at a fully unknown table, but if that's all you've got, you'll fall way behind in the long run. If you're not playing exploitatively (and balancing your ranges, if necessary), you're leaving money on the table and making yourself very predictable.

 

[Pesto628]

So I certainly agree with everyone that having a maniac at the table is good for your wallet. Especially when I play online, I will make sure to never leave a table when there is a maniac present.

I guess my initial intention when making this post was that a maniac doesn’t ruin the game from a financial sense, but when a player shoves every other hand regardless of pot and stack size, and I am forced to face this during the once a month game I attend, it makes the night incredibly unchallenging and kind of boring.

I don’t want to be playing with some pro who will own the table either, but I feel like I miss out on trying out new strategies and working on improving when 80% of hands I’m dealing with someone who’s gambling in the purest sense.

 

[Jimulacrum]

So I certainly agree with everyone that having a maniac at the table is good for your wallet. Especially when I play online, I will make sure to never leave a table when there is a maniac present.

I guess my initial intention when making this post was that a maniac doesn’t ruin the game from a financial sense, but when a player shoves every other hand regardless of pot and stack size, and I am forced to face this during the once a month game I attend, it makes the night incredibly unchallenging and kind of boring.

I don’t want to be playing with some pro who will own the table either, but I feel like I miss out on trying out new strategies and working on improving when 80% of hands I’m dealing with someone who’s gambling in the purest sense.

I can agree with that. It doesn't make for a very fun game, especially if you don't play often and you have to deal with it all night. I think, if you dig through the replies, folks have laid out most of the ways you can try to deal with it:

1. Talk to the maniac and try to see if he'll tone it down.
2. Stop inviting the maniac altogether.
3. Instruct other players as to how to beat him, so that he busts and has to leave earlier.
4. Implement (A) tighter buy-in limits and/or (B) a maximum out-of-pocket per night.
5. Play PL preflop and NL post-flop.
6. Play limit poker.

Option #1 I have mixed feelings about. On the one hand, you should at least give the guy a warning if you might have to use option #2, but on the other hand, who are you to tell a guy how he's supposed to play? Definitely requires a diplomatic touch.

Option #2 is a slippery slope, though it's well within the rights of the host. After all, a big part of the hosts's job is to curate the game. I'd say this is a last resort, though, after you've tried option #1 with no success.

Option #3 is like tapping the tank, and it could start to resemble collusion if you're gathering with other players while the maniac isn't there, figuring out how to bust him out quickly. But it would work. He won't be there long if a lot of people are countering him well.

Option #4, I don't see (A) making a huge difference, unless you make the maximum very low. Then the maniac's rebuys won't give him much shoving power, and players will tend to have bigger stacks and can pick him off with less fear. I play in a game that implemented this somewhat successfully for pretty much the same purpose. As to (B), I don't agree with that at all. It's like forcing a tournament idea onto a cash game. Part of the deal in a cash game is that you can rebuy to your heart's content.

Option #5, meh. If you're going to do this, just play PL. That's not a bad idea, though.

Option #6, I think is the best of all, but it's also the most drastic change to the game. However, it's a good change whether or not you're facing a maniac. Limit games are healthier overall, for a variety of reasons.

 

[Beakertwang]

I was just thinking about this again: one maniac doesn't necessarily ruin the game for me--I can deal with it. However, 3 or 4 maniacs at a table would make a game unbearable for me. I'm looking at you, P* play money cash games!

 

[Rhodeman77]

I love a maniac or two at any table I am at. I also like a (semi) nit or two at the table along with a bunch of loose passive players.

Having a few of each type of player at a game makes it easier for me to read the other players. When a nit gets into a pot with a maniac it makes it easy for me to fold marginal hands I may have played against a maniac otherwise.

But when there are just several maniacs at the table there isn’t anyone to help keep them in check. So I have have to wait for spots to trap which while being profitable is boring to my usual LAG style of play.

I posted recently about a player that played my game that was a maniac, mostly because he plays much higher stakes normally. He would blind raise pot after announcing he would before the hand. He played hands blind. Huge bets with nothing.

The table loved it! The next day I had people calling me to make sure I let them know the next time he plays so they can make sure to be there. And it wasn’t because he lost, he actually won! He got hit by the deck and got very lucky in a few hands. But it was entertaining.

Overall I would much rather play at a table with a bunch of maniacs than a bunch of nits. Maniacs will always give action so even if they stack me I will reload and hopefully get them the next time or the time after that. The nit on the other hand most likely will put that money on lockdown.

This past weekend is a perfect example of just that. I was in the casino game for $1900 with 2 maniacs, they got me a few times, but I eventually got it all back and then some.

 

[Gobbs]

Can I answer with Option 3..."it depends".

If the maniac is better than you, it makes it worse.
If the maniac is not better than you, it makes it better.

 

[UKS]

Many players play to play. Not to fold. If someone comes in and makes it expensive and difficult to play. They don’t want to.

 

[rjbf65]

Im good with one maniac per table. But I want him on my right. It gives me fits if they are on my left. I’m the definition of TAG and I have a hard time deviating from that style.

 

[glom]

Im good with one maniac per table. But I want him on my right. It gives me fits if they are on my left. I’m the definition of TAG and I have a hard time deviating from that style.

A true tag should love a maniac on the left.

 

[Rhodeman77]

A true tag should love a maniac on the left.

For a year or so I played in a cash game every Sunday afternoon. Same 7-8 guys every week, we even sat in the same seats for the most part. I always sat to the right of the maniac. It is so much easier to trap him, and all the dead money that enters the pot once he raises before it would get back to me.

 

[glom]

For a year or so I played in a cash game every Sunday afternoon. Same 7-8 guys every week, we even sat in the same seats for the most part. I always sat to the right of the maniac. It is so much easier to trap him, and all the dead money that enters the pot once he raises before it would get back to me.

Plus limping and then 3 betting the field when he raises is a great source of extra value.

 

[rjbf65]

Maybe I’m not a true TAG player then. I feel maniacs are guys I never attempt to bluff. They will call you down with any piece of the board. Also any board can hit their range. My trouble with them is I have to have a decent hand and I’m scared to build a pot if I don’t have the goods. I just prefer to have them on my right as I get a little bit more information before I act.

 

[glom]

don’t bluff them. Let them help drive the action when you are at a range advantage, which should be often.

 

[CHP TD]

I have trouble understanding the question. If you play NL its just a part of the game.

Maybe no limits not for you?

 

[CamoCladWarrior]

I have played with some guys like this. Best to recognize this and I tend to let them do thier thing. Generally speaking they don't last long. I just try not to put myself in a situation to get to bad of a beat by a dude like that lol

 

[dkersey]

So my fear of what might happen, happened, so I've read this thread twice now...

I too am trying to start a home game mainly with surrounding neighborhood players. I want it to be a somewhat social game, and not one where people will lose a mortgage/rent payment in a night. The players are mostly casual players, and they prefer tournaments, no more than $40 buyins it seems. Tournaments have rigidity around starting times and progression, and everyone is busy, so I thought a cash game would be a good alternative. My blinds are .25/.50 with a max buy in of $50 (or up to 100% of big stack up to $100).

Here is what happened: Maniac buys in for max and takes stack of a weak player in the 3rd hand, and immediately transforms into Super Maniac. Furthermore, he hits several big hands (boats, straights, and even quads) in the 1st hour. He is making sports bets on the side, contacting his bookie, tells stories of big games in casinos. It is clear he is used to playing bigger stakes. I don't know if he is a winning player, but he is definitely a good/experienced/knowledgable player. Since he was always up, any raise to anything less than $5 preflop was an autocall without him even looking at his cards. Over the course of only 4 hours, we are down to 3 (from 10) players, and stop for the night. A few people rebought 1 once, and a few just bought in 1 time. Personally, I don't have a problem with this type of player. In fact, I ended way up as well, mostly because I won 2 big pots off the Maniac. However, my fear is the casual players did not have a good time. As others have said above, it is not fun for the casual player to fold, fold, fold, all-in for a stack and cross their fingers the guy doesn't get lucky again.

He was a nice guy, very talkative, gave lots of action (obviously), so I don't want to de-invite him, but I'm still looking to grow the game. I fear people won't come back if they know he is there. Thoughts please!

 

[Schmendr1ck]

So my fear of what might happen, happened, so I've read this thread twice now...

I too am trying to start a home game mainly with surrounding neighborhood players. I want it to be a somewhat social game, and not one where people will lose a mortgage/rent payment in a night. The players are mostly casual players, and they prefer tournaments, no more than $40 buyins it seems. Tournaments have rigidity around starting times and progression, and everyone is busy, so I thought a cash game would be a good alternative. My blinds are .25/.50 with a max buy in of $50 (or up to 100% of big stack up to $100).

Here is what happened: Maniac buys in for max and takes stack of a weak player in the 3rd hand, and immediately transforms into Super Maniac. Furthermore, he hits several big hands (boats, straights, and even quads) in the 1st hour. He is making sports bets on the side, contacting his bookie, tells stories of big games in casinos. It is clear he is used to playing bigger stakes. I don't know if he is a winning player, but he is definitely a good/experienced/knowledgable player. Since he was always up, any raise to anything less than $5 preflop was an autocall without him even looking at his cards. Over the course of only 4 hours, we are down to 3 (from 10) players, and stop for the night. A few people rebought 1 once, and a few just bought in 1 time. Personally, I don't have a problem with this type of player. In fact, I ended way up as well, mostly because I won 2 big pots off the Maniac. However, my fear is the casual players did not have a good time. As others have said above, it is not fun for the casual player to fold, fold, fold, all-in for a stack and cross their fingers the guy doesn't get lucky again.

He was a nice guy, very talkative, gave lots of action (obviously), so I don't want to de-invite him, but I'm still looking to grow the game. I fear people won't come back if they know he is there. Thoughts please!

It sounds like you should host a tourney rather than a cash game. You describe a group of players that are casual, risk-averse, and don't like to rebuy much. You even say that they prefer tournaments, and you're concerned they didn't have a good time playing cash.

Give them what they want - host tourneys. Eventually, as the group grows and players get more comfortable, you'll probably have a few that are interested in playing cash, and you can revisit that idea then.

 

[Jimulacrum]

If he's really just throwing his stack around and auto-calling $5 preflop raises in a $0.25/$0.50 game, he ought to find himself broke pretty quickly.

But of course, that doesn't change the fact that Mr Maniac absolutely crushed on this night. It's unfortunate, because on most nights, he won't (or shouldn't, anyway), so it's a kinda bad intro to the game for the other players. Better if he dumps hundreds his first few sessions before booking a win. But oh well.

One thing I'd recommend, based on your synopsis, is to set a hard cap of $50 for the buy-ins. If there were very few rebuys, that $50 is probably right up there at most of your players' "gulp" limits. Few if any players will avail themselves of the rule that allows them to match half the big stack, and something tells me it'll be Mr Maniac who does it more than anyone—which will only amplify the oh-shit-this-guy-is-scary-to-play-against factor.

You could even go lower on the cap, if you want. There's no magic book out there that says a NLHE game has to have a 100 BB max. I play every week in a $0.25/$0.50 game with a $20 cap, and it's actually great for the action and keeps bullies like me from running over the game right out of the gate. Rebuying for $20 at a time is easier for a lot of people to stomach, so we get a ton of rebuys, and the table stays pretty full almost all night (usually 5–6 hours). It could help put a lid on Mr Maniac's ability to scare people out of pots.

(We do end up playing with 100 BB or deeper stacks pretty quickly, BTW, so it's not all short-stack stupidity all night. It's just that getting the money on the table $20 at a time saves some of the fishier players from going busto at lightning speed.)

 

[Jimulacrum]

It sounds like you should host a tourney rather than a cash game. You describe a group of players that are casual, risk-averse, and don't like to rebuy much. You even say that they prefer tournaments, and you're concerned they didn't have a good time playing cash.

Give them what they want - host tourneys. Eventually, as the group grows and players get more comfortable, you'll probably have a few that are interested in playing cash, and you can revisit that idea then.

Or what he said. If tourneys are feasible, it would fix a lot of this. But it sounds like you wrote tourneys off already because the logistics would be tough to manage.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

If he's really just throwing his stack around and auto-calling $5 preflop raises in a $0.25/$0.50 game, he ought to find himself broke pretty quickly.

But of course, that doesn't change the fact that Mr Maniac absolutely crushed on this night. It's unfortunate, because on most nights, he won't (or shouldn't, anyway), so it's a kinda bad intro to the game for the other players. Better if he dumps hundreds his first few sessions before booking a win. But oh well.

One thing I'd recommend, based on your synopsis, is to set a hard cap of $50 for the buy-ins. If there were very few rebuys, that $50 is probably right up there at most of your players' "gulp" limits. Few if any players will avail themselves of the rule that allows them to match half the big stack, and something tells me it'll be Mr Maniac who does it more than anyone—which will only amplify the oh-shit-this-guy-is-scary-to-play-against factor.

You could even go lower on the cap, if you want. There's no magic book out there that says a NLHE game has to have a 100 BB max. I play every week in a $0.25/$0.50 game with a $20 cap, and it's actually great for the action and keeps bullies like me from running over the game right out of the gate. Rebuying for $20 at a time is easier for a lot of people to stomach, so we get a ton of rebuys, and the table stays pretty full almost all night (usually 5–6 hours). It could help put a lid on Mr Maniac's ability to scare people out of pots.

(We do end up playing with 100 BB or deeper stacks pretty quickly, BTW, so it's not all short-stack stupidity all night. It's just that getting the money on the table $20 at a time saves some of the fishier players from going busto at lightning speed.)

Yeah, if tourneys are a no-go because of logistics, then the hard cap is an outstanding idea.

That's what I did when starting a cash game years ago from my mostly-tourney-only player base. We started playing .25/.25 with a $20 cap, worked our way up to .25/.50 $50 max, and now (years later) my game is usually .25/.50 $100 max. I allow $20 minimum buys, so casual/new players can still jump in for $20 at a time and stay in their comfort zone.