Cash Game General Questions on Low Stakes Cash Game (1 Viewer)

Steve Birrer

Two Pair
Joined
Aug 16, 2017
Messages
365
Reaction score
273
Location
Idaho and MIssissippi
Have a group of regulars that have been playing together for a number of years. Always been NLHE tournament games. But they have asked about adding a cash hold em game so think we are going to do that but a couple of questions. Due to my chip set going to use .25/.25 blinds.

1. I tend to prefer no limit since my experience with limit has been less than fun. Its always been in a casino and my limited times playing seems like a ton of guys just play every hand. Nothing to have 5 or 6 guys in post flop. Seems like it just became too much luck box. Premium hands not holding up when facing 5 or 6 players. But am open to suggestions toward limit or no limit.

2. What is a reasonable max buy in? Thinking about $40. With even 10 players I could handle that chip wise.

3. How do you handle guys topping off their stacks? Let them buy in again after they bust out or allow them to top off back to $40 when they get down
 
$25 buyin would be 100xBB, so $40 buyin is 160BB and will play plenty deep.

We allow top off to the max buyin of half the big stack at any time. I think more often, too off is the initial buyin.

If players play every hand, your limits are too low.
 
$40 is already 160BB which is pretty deep and nice - @RocAFella1 :D
I guess doing .25/.50 shouldn't be a problem if your set can handle .25/.25
In general, if there is no variable buy-in (from a minimum to a maximum) but rather a standard one, I would go for 100 BBs. (i.e. $25 for .25/.25 or $50 for .25/.50).

People should be free to top off anytime (unless they abuse that right, in which case you could determine a minimum amount about which to bother the bank.
You could even allow an eventually higher buy-in, up to half the big stack (especially with an otherwise standard buy-in). Lots of pros and cons.
 
Are you using the same chip set for cash games that you have been using for tourneys? If so, may want to consider a dedicated set for each (1 cash set; 1 tourney set).

At .25/.25, $40 buy-in is fine and gives players lots of starting room. In a cash game, though, I wouldn’t limit their re-buys or adding on. It’s not like a tourney where you have eliminations and are working toward one winner. Cash is cash, so players should be able to cash out at anytime or buy-in for more if they are willing to take the risk.
 
I personally like a deeper stack game for low stakes. With smaller buy-ins, it seems preflop raises and post flop bets are less respected. Plus I love having more chips on the table! I do a .25/.50 no limit with $100 min buy in. There are less rebuys, but all ins are something to think about.
I agree, players should be able to top off at anytime.
Also, I think getting substitute chips just to expand your bank would be beneficial and worth making the game better. At least until you can find the chips you are looking for. If you build it, they will come.
 
Are you using the same chip set for cash games that you have been using for tourneys? If so, may want to consider a dedicated set for each (1 cash set; 1 tourney set).

At .25/.25, $40 buy-in is fine and gives players lots of starting room. In a cash game, though, I wouldn’t limit their re-buys or adding on. It’s not like a tourney where you have eliminations and are working toward one winner. Cash is cash, so players should be able to cash out at anytime or buy-in for more if they are willing to take the risk.

No I have a dedicated chip set for cash. As for buy in for more I don't like that since it becomes far too easy for somebody to buy in with a ton of cash and just shove all the time. Yes they risk their money but this is a low key game. Although I am a stickler for following poker rules and etiquitte we still have a pretty freindly group. Now if we decide to have a limit game then that isn't as big an issue.
 
A couple of things I forgot:
-Among socially related people, a time must be set before which no winning player can leave (loosing players can leave anytime, of course). Even thus, an one-orbit warning should be given to others, before one leaves.
-In order to protect the game from possible richer-than-others maniacs you could establish a maximum total buy-in per night (just divide the total bank by the number of players).
-As for limit, I have never played, never seen others play, and never understood how it works; sounds awfully dull to me, though.
 
I see your point. Can always have a min/max initial buy-in...say $20-60, then only allow max re-buy of up to half the big stack as others are suggesting.
 
Sounds like our groups are similar. Here is what we do

.25/.25 Blinds (.05/.10 on Tournament Nights)
$20 Recommended Buy In ($40 Max)
Spread Limit Game until 8:00
Bets Between .25-$2
Raise Bets Between .25-$2
Maximum of 1 Bet and 3 Raises Each Betting Round
No Limit after 8:00! "Things Get Squirrely"~Larry Boccuzzio~
Can only reload for a stack up to $40 before 8:00 and up to half the big stack after 8:00
Only available in between hands
There will be a 10 Minute Break and Seats will be Redrawn at 8:00, 9:30, 11:00 and 12:30
No Hit and Runs or Partial Cash Outs- All Players Must Give a Minimum 30 Minute or 2 Orbit Notice Before Cashing out for over the buy in amount.
Check out the Nightly Special in Upcoming Events
 
All Players Must Give a Minimum 30 Minute or 2 Orbit Notice Before Cashing out for over the buy in amount.

Need to implement this in our game. Hasn’t happened yet, but could help stave off future issues.
 
We used to run a weekly Big O game(.25/.50) so the game played quite large. This past year we moved to a 2/4 mixed limit game to help some balance out the variance of the games. We had too many weeks of ppl getting in for a bunch in Big O. We didn’t want folks to go broke so quickly. Each group is different.
 
Cash games are different than tournaments in many ways. Once someone buys into a tournament they know that money is gone. Cash games are different. What you have in front of you is equal to real money. So even though it your group is friendly changing to cash games will put a different feel to the game, even at low stakes.

I’m not a fan of trying to limit a cash game to make it feel more like a tournament or to handicap play styles. If you are worried about maniacs use a set min and max buy in.

Most players don’t abuse adding-on. They will usually do it once they get down to a point they feel they can’t play effectively. Rarely will someone ask to add-on after every hand, I’ve never had it happen actually. And if you did you can have them buy extra and put it in their pocket to pull out when they drop below the max.
 
Due to my chip set going to use .25/.25 blinds.

Build the game around your players, not your chip-set. You will see a lot of pre-flop action if players don't value quarters. Having a minimum buy-in that makes it a little painful for players to come back in may curb pre-flop aggression. The challenge is finding the right balance.

Anticipate a smaller turnout. Many tournament players don't respond well to cash games where there is no cap to the amount of money that can be put at risk.
 
Last edited:
Good advice all around. And if you are in a limit game with 5-6 people going to the flop (or 4th Street in stud) then you are in a great limit game! The variance is just going to be higher than you are used to compared to No Limit.
 
I do mostly 25c/25c, wanted to do sb/25c using another chip as sb but the others didn't feel like so I just sticked with 25c. We do $20 min $40 max buy ins.
 
I do a (swedish, so the equivalent of)
$0.2/0.4 game.
Min buy-in 100bbs and no max. Add-on at will. Usually means players will buy in for 200-300 bbs and add-on whenever they take bigger hits.

Don’t like to restrict cash games too much.
Rule of thumb for my game is what everyone agrees on goes: straddling, 7-2 game, running it x times, other games besides hold em etc. Depends on the crowd on given night.
 
To point 1, if you don't like limit, why would you even consider it. Limit and no limit are different games, there are benefits to each. But if you are converting tournament players, NL is an easier transition.

To point 2....

Cash games are different than tournaments in many ways. Once someone buys into a tournament they know that money is gone. Cash games are different. What you have in front of you is equal to real money. So even though it your group is friendly changing to cash games will put a different feel to the game, even at low stakes.

Excellent advice. So for this reason, I suggest you set your max to a number where you think the players are comfortable going 2-3 buy ins.

Personally for 0.25-0.25 I think $20 is a sufficient max at 80bb. No problem with choosing 25, 30, or 40 as well. The point is if you set the max too high your game will end early if everyone is only playing for one bullet.

DO pick a max where most of your players are comfortable with multiple buy ins.

DO NOT pick the highest max where you think players will only go in once.

I think a lot of hosts make the second mistake.

To point 3, I allow players to top off to the max anytime (between hands of course) so long as they are buying in multiples of the minimum buy in. (Which is usually 20BB for me, or $5 in the case of .25-.25.). Not that I have seen players actually do this, but it prevents the idea that a player should max out after posting 0.50 worth of blinds.

So applying this rule to a .25-.25 game with a 20 max, a player can't add on 5 unless he has 15 or less. Said player cannot buy 10 unless he has 10 or less, etc...

This rule also makes it easy to set the add on by estimating the stack.
 
Last edited:
Do most people do the rule regarding giving notice for an amount of time before you cash out (1 full rotation or 30 min). I've never played that way as I feel thats one of the benefits of cash games that you can call it quits when you want but I've also never had someone abuse it by winning a huge pot and getting up immediately. Just curious what most people do
 
Do most people do the rule regarding giving notice for an amount of time before you cash out (1 full rotation or 30 min). I've never played that way as I feel thats one of the benefits of cash games that you can call it quits when you want but I've also never had someone abuse it by winning a huge pot and getting up immediately. Just curious what most people do
If it's people I know and trust, then no. Unless they start making a habit of it. But most people give fair warning anyway as a courtesy.
 
Last edited:
Personally for 0.25-0.25 I think $20 is a sufficient max at 80bb.
This is what we do also - our tourney buy-in is $20 with a max of two rebuys. So $20 for cash is what works for us. It's also not too large so if you bust you're more likely to buy back in. After the initial, we cap at half the big stack but this is generally ~$20 anyway since the cash game doesn't usually run that long.

I know that it's not nice when someone gets up after winning big but there really isn't a solution to this. Even if you say 30mins or 2 orbits, they can just fold every hand and lose $1 and leave - all this does is annoy everyone. This is also highly dependent on your crowd - I play with friends so no one will ever get up after winning big, they'll stay and play while everyone else does - it's a social thing. Even if they bust out and decide not to rebuy, they'll stick around, drink and help with dealing.
 
In a game between friends, supposed friends, wannabe friends, or even worse, co-workers, an exact time must be preset, before which no winning player leaves. Even after that, a two-orbit warning requirement should be in place too.
 
I know that it's not nice when someone gets up after winning big but there really isn't a solution to this. Even if you say 30mins or 2 orbits, they can just fold every hand and lose $1 and leave - all this does is annoy everyone. This is also highly dependent on your crowd - I play with friends so no one will ever get up after winning big, they'll stay and play while everyone else does - it's a social thing. Even if they bust out and decide not to rebuy, they'll stick around, drink and help with dealing.
In a game between friends, supposed friends, wannabe friends, or even worse, co-workers, an exact time must be preset, before which no winning player leaves. Even after that, a two-orbit warning requirement should be in place too.

I agree with some of this. In a home game, there should be an expectation that players stay for some interval as a courtesy to other players. Home games are not casinos, invites are limited and there isn't always a board to fill seats. But I don't think the expectation to stay should depend all that much on whether or not a player is ahead or behind. I would argue the guy that comes prepared to only lose one buy in and is usually done in 15 minutes is also bad for the game as one who doubles up at leaves after the same length of time, just in a different way. I get the second one is "worse" because it is removing money from the economy of the game instead of adding to it in the former case, but the departure of either type of player reduces the overall lifespan of the game before it becomes too short to be viable, which is not fair to those that are showing up with the courtesy and expectation of playing at least a few hours.

So I may not be as rigid as setting an hour, but I am going to notice players that aren't willing to commit a couple hours and screen them from invites. Our group doesn't really have this problem. Most are players, in they sense they understand they should be willing to fire a couple shells, and most of the time they want to commit an afternoon/evening to the game.

I do also appreciate the one-orbit warning, especially as the game gets down to 5-6 handed. I think all players to a home game should expect to play 5 handed at some point before breaking, but giving the one-orbit warning when a game is about to break allows for a fair discussion on setting a time for the game to break and who deals least (and who posts blinds last, usually I suggest the player/seat that won the button at the game's open post the last BB, or I will just volunteer to take it if it's a tipping crowd ;).)
 
Last edited:
I agree with the advance notice for the fact of getting down to 5-6 handed. I didn't consider that as our group is pretty good and will continue until we are down to 3 or 4 handed before we will break for the night
 
I agree with the advance notice for the fact of getting down to 5-6 handed. I didn't consider that as our group is pretty good and will continue until we are down to 3 or 4 handed before we will break for the night

Some of my best times in college were playing 3 handed until 4am in a nickel-dime blind game :).
 
You can't impose on loosing players to stay, indeed. We never do that. It's just weakness (in terms of skill or finances) not bad faith - unlike running away with winnings.
It's the host's duty to warn invitees about the stakes, buy-in and usual amount of money on the table, as well as to assess (or even openly ask about) skills and will / availability of money to be "risked". I always make sure to invite crews as homogeneous as possible (I've got the "big" and the "small/ecucational/recruitment" crew - with some overlapping).

Everything is smaller in Europe:LOL: :laugh:, so we start 8-handed max, (7-max at my game) or even 6-handed, but continue till 3-handed (in which case I at least switch the game to single blind).
 
You can't impose on loosing players to stay, indeed. We never do that. It's just weakness (in terms of skill or finances) not bad faith - unlike running away with winnings.

I do agree with this. There is a difference between guy that gets cooler-ed a couple times and wants to be done once in a while and guy that always shows up for the minimum and will quit early unless he makes a big score with little risk. I acknowledge it's not exactly the same, but it's still worth observing this sort of player is still bad for the game.

Everything is smaller in Europe:LOL: :laugh:, so we start 8-handed max, (7-max at my game) or even 6-handed, but continue till 3-handed (in which case I at least switch the game to single blind).

My approach is not that different, I will start the game as soon as 5 are ready, I can accommodate 9 comfortably at my table, 10 is still okay too. I expect the game to continue until there are fewer than 5 players, and if 4 want to keep going, we'll keep going :).
 
I prefer to smaller table as everyone feels the need to pay attention. Once you get up to 9 or 10 people think they have too long until they need to act and stop paying attention and things get sloppy
 

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.

Back
Top Bottom