SpaceMonkey420
Full House
Tourney and limit games work well. Capping a no limit also works but that’s no fun.
Cash Game Help! Family game has grown too expensive. (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Jampiece
- Start date
colter ripton
Full House
limiting the amount of rebuys could help, and making your buy in amount smaller might help too.
I think though the best solution might be what @Eloe2000 suggested. Talk to the players who are making the game uncomfortable or not fun for the other players. In the end you are all family or close friends. 2 people shouldn't be able to ruin the game for the other 6 or 8. They will most likely understand and work with you if they want to see the game keep going.
I think though the best solution might be what @Eloe2000 suggested. Talk to the players who are making the game uncomfortable or not fun for the other players. In the end you are all family or close friends. 2 people shouldn't be able to ruin the game for the other 6 or 8. They will most likely understand and work with you if they want to see the game keep going.
crussader
Flush
I have had this problem before. We solved it by not only having a cap on each buy-in, but a cap on total buy-in as well. Our buy-ins were $20 to$40, but once you spent $100 on chips, you were done for the night. No more buy-ins allowed.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
Correct, if you use a limit structure, the buy in amount becomes irrelavant.
This is what is known as a "spread limit" game by the way. Where bets on all streets are restricted to a range, in this case 0.20-0.50.
I'd ditch the big-bet structures (pot-limit and no-limit) and stick with fixed-limit.
Changing to spread-limit is sorta pointless imo, since the hands will almost always be maxed out every street if the game has been scaled back from a previous big-bet structure.
Changing to spread-limit is sorta pointless imo, since the hands will almost always be maxed out every street if the game has been scaled back from a previous big-bet structure.
No-Limit: bets may be any amount between the minimum bet size (typically the big blind or bring-in) and the size of the bettor's stack, with no restrictions on number of raises.
Pot-Limit: bets may be any amount between the minimum bet size and the size of the pot, with no restrictions on number of raises.
Fixed-Limit: all bets and raises must be exactly the size of the small bet during pre-flop/flop betting (or 3rd/4th street) or the size of the big bet during turn/river betting (or 5th/6th/7th street), and limited to one bet and three raises (four bets total) unless heads-up at the beginning of the betting round.
Spread-Limit: same as Fixed-Limit, except there is an additional specified maximum bet size, and all bet/raise amounts may be between those stated above and the maximum bet size.
What @JustinInMN and @crussader said. Especially the latter.
Limit might work, people say, but I can't recommend it 'cause I 've never played it, I just can't figure out how it works and it looks awful to me
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
Fixed Limit: All bets and raises on each street are predefined. A 2/4 limit game has bets and raises of 2 on the first two rounds (pre and post flop in board games, 3rd and 4th streets in stud games) and then 4 on all remaining rounds (turn and river in board games, 5th, 6th, and 7th streets in stud games). Note the big blind in button games is the same as one bet of the early limit. So the blinds in a 2/4 limit game would be 1-2.
Spread Limit: All bets and raises fit within a predefined range on all rounds. In button games the minimum is the amount of the big blind, and the maximum is whatever you would determine it to be. But @BGinGA is right if range is pretty tight, it just ends up being max bets for the most of the hand anyway.
Pot Limit: All bets and raises may be in amounts up to the size of the pot. There are a few finer points with this commonly used to simplify calculations, but I figured this definition is sufficient for this discussion.
No Limit: All bets and raises may be in amounts up to the size of the bettor's stack. This is the most familiar form of betting because it's what's on TV.
Games using NL and PL structures may still be governed by buy-in requirements. Which as I said above, would be the answer to the issue posed in the original post short of changing the actual betting structure to fixed or spread limit.
ekricket
Royal Flush
Maybe you could try to get more chips on the table, that might help with the “action” feel. But you want more chips with less value. That way they can throw around large numbers of chips but at the end of the night it’s not a lot of money.
You could give each person 4x their buyin at the beginning, and then divide their chip count by 4 when cashing out. So if they buy in for $20 give them 80 in chips. When they cash out 120 in chips give them $30. So everyone’s a high roller in the game but down to earth when it’s time to cash in.
This works good too when you want toplay a small stakes game but don’t have any quarters or other fracs. Kinda like a tourney, buy in for $20 but get 10,000 in chips to maneuver with.
You could give each person 4x their buyin at the beginning, and then divide their chip count by 4 when cashing out. So if they buy in for $20 give them 80 in chips. When they cash out 120 in chips give them $30. So everyone’s a high roller in the game but down to earth when it’s time to cash in.
This works good too when you want toplay a small stakes game but don’t have any quarters or other fracs. Kinda like a tourney, buy in for $20 but get 10,000 in chips to maneuver with.
Rhodeman77
Straight Flush
If you try spread limit, I recommend increasing the size of the max bet for the turn and river.
so if you make the spread 25c to $1 preflop and flop, make it 25c to $2 on the turn and river.
it makes the game so everyone doesn’t auto call the turn and river since the max bet is only $1 and there is already several bets in the pot.
so if you make the spread 25c to $1 preflop and flop, make it 25c to $2 on the turn and river.
it makes the game so everyone doesn’t auto call the turn and river since the max bet is only $1 and there is already several bets in the pot.
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
And the problem with tournaments in a social game is that there usually is a significant difference in time between the first elimination and the conclusion of the event. Doing a rebuy period helps with that to a point, but at some point you have to have a freezeout period or the event will not end. Unless there is a backup cash game or something, it separates the participants by design.
All of that said, if players are comfortable with all of that, go for it.
All of that said, if players are comfortable with all of that, go for it.
Kid_Eastwood
Full House
A $20 tournament could maybe work ?
Good thing : there is a max loss of $20
Bad thing : if there is an early bust, his night is done
You can also alllow one rebuy.
Good thing : there is a max loss of $20
Bad thing : if there is an early bust, his night is done
You can also alllow one rebuy.
Jampiece
High Hand
Alright folks I've talked with my cousin (the other main guy) and we are going to implement a $10 max buyin for the cash game. We have never had to in decades but with a few of the aggressive guys i think it's the best way to start. I appreciate the input and am hoping this works. Tonight is the night and I'll report here what happened.
We will be starting the night with a tournament. Should be 10 of us and the tourney set we have is
5. 200ct
25. 150ct
100. 100ct
250. 25ct
500. 25 ct
Any recommendations for starting stacks and blind levels? One of the aggressive guys that plays a lot of tourneys suggested 10min levels but i feel like thats very short for live but probably only want it lasting 2-3hrs before switching to a cash game.
We will be starting the night with a tournament. Should be 10 of us and the tourney set we have is
5. 200ct
25. 150ct
100. 100ct
250. 25ct
500. 25 ct
Any recommendations for starting stacks and blind levels? One of the aggressive guys that plays a lot of tourneys suggested 10min levels but i feel like thats very short for live but probably only want it lasting 2-3hrs before switching to a cash game.
tabletalker7
Full House
10 x 5
10 x 25
7 x 100
2 x 500
Sorry but the 250 chips are useless. Usually half of my field gets eliminated in Round 8. Break 2 color up 5's. You can color up 25 at break 3, but you should be heads up by then so it might not be worth it.
Kid_Eastwood
Full House
10 players T1000 should end at level 200-400 or 300-600 if no rebuy is allowed.
If you start at level 5-10 with the structure above, it means 10-11 levels of play (assuming no rebuy).
So make it 17 min blinds to have 3 hours of actual play.
I'd just then add level 5-15 between 5-10 and 10-20 to avoid a 100% jump and then make it 15 or 16 min. per level.
For starting stacks I'd go with :
T5 x 15
T25 x 13
T100 x 6
Johnblue
Flush
Totally, agree here.
How about a strict 2 or 3 rebuys max. Single rebuys only the first couple hours, maybe a double at the end of the night if the player still has it in que... Whatever you guys agree on, I’ve played plenty of friendly games where they had rebuy limits, it sets the tone.
It would keep the smaller players happy and relevant, and slow down the steamrollers... they would think twice about donking off thier chips And make them actually have to play poker.
Plus everyone has a better idea of how the nights gonna go money-wise, on any given night it’s 400-600 on the table, no surprises, good for gauging your long term bragging rights...
I love tournaments too, it’s a great way to go. Expect a losers table to open up, in which case, refer to all of the above haha.
Last edited:
detroitdad
Royal Flush
Tell them to play better?
You don’t need to disinvite anyone... You can just lower the stakes, and the higher rollers will either deal with it, or disinvite themselves (not play).
I agree with the comment that short stack depths are going to contribute to more BINGO play. When the stack to pot ratios are low after the flop or turn, going all-in becomes much more likely (and correct) than if you are deep.
The one concern I’d have is if the lower stakes cause those with bigger bankrolls to play even more wildly and force even more rebuys (by both themselves and others). So your idea of a timeout or other disincentive might be needed. How about a progressive timeout—1 orbit the first time, 2 the second, 3 the third...
But the suggestion of a deepstacked tourney with slow blinds to start seems like the best option. And maybe limit it to one rebuy.
A modest optional add-on after the first couple hours also can help extend play for more people. You’re still going to have the occssional instance where someone is out early, but that’s just the breaks.
I agree with the comment that short stack depths are going to contribute to more BINGO play. When the stack to pot ratios are low after the flop or turn, going all-in becomes much more likely (and correct) than if you are deep.
The one concern I’d have is if the lower stakes cause those with bigger bankrolls to play even more wildly and force even more rebuys (by both themselves and others). So your idea of a timeout or other disincentive might be needed. How about a progressive timeout—1 orbit the first time, 2 the second, 3 the third...
But the suggestion of a deepstacked tourney with slow blinds to start seems like the best option. And maybe limit it to one rebuy.
A modest optional add-on after the first couple hours also can help extend play for more people. You’re still going to have the occssional instance where someone is out early, but that’s just the breaks.
ekricket
Royal Flush
Have you considered kill pots in the cash game?
True, but how much difference depends a lot on how you structure the tourney (blinds, stack depths, rebuys, add-ones). In my two-table tourney, it’s rare that more than 1-2 people bust before the first two-hour break.
One of those is a simply terrible player (who knows he’s terrible, and is almost always the first out... Also by far the most regular attendee!).
If by having a slow, deep structure you can ensure that pretty much everyone gets at minimum 90-120 minutes of play, that should be plenty. If you want to ensure that it’s over in (say) 4-5 hours, speed things up on the backend.
Jimulacrum
Full House
All these suggestions about unorthodox rules like time-out periods, total nightly buy-in limits, pot-limit preflop, and so on are going to complicate your game and make people unhappy. Imagine being the guy who has to go home early even though he still has $100 left to play with, or who has to sit around with his thumb up his butt for 10 minutes while everyone else plays.
Your #1 problem is that no-limit Hold'em is a hustler's game, and this is somewhat true of all big-bet games. It can be fun and fair in a group of recreational players passing chips around among themselves. But once you have a shark or two, you're gonna know it because your fish will be getting torn apart regularly (exactly what you're complaining about). I've been that shark multiple times, including in an infrequent friendly family game. Of course, it's great at first. Being a skilled player at a NLHE table full of clueless splashers is like printing money. But then players stop showing up, or you get uninvited, or the game breaks entirely.
It's inevitable, and it will remain inevitable as long as you're spreading big-bet poker. That structure alone, whether it's PL or NL, gives skilled players a massive, insurmountable edge against casual gamblers.
Containing your max buy-in to $10 should help at least slow the bleeding a little. Your bigger players may become less interested if there isn't as much to play for, which will spare your smaller players somewhat. Perhaps more importantly, it will reduce the skill factor in your game, giving the better players a little less of an edge. It may even frustrate them into making mistakes and losing money.
Running a tournament could help too. Limiting people's outlay will make the game more sustainable. However, you'll still be playing the same game that some players are dramatically better at than others, and those stronger players will end up ITM disproportionately more often than your weaker players.
But long-term, fixed-limit poker is the solution, at stakes that all your players are comfortable with. Sharks will still make money, but it won't be this slaughterhouse where they're stacking your weaker players one after the other or forcing them to play for much more than they're comfortable with. People have to be comfortable with the stakes and capable of walking away winners once in a while. They need to be having fun, not just paying some semi-pro's hourly. Limit poker offers that to a lot more players, whereas NLHE rewards your top performers greatly and sends your weaker players home with empty pockets.
Your #1 problem is that no-limit Hold'em is a hustler's game, and this is somewhat true of all big-bet games. It can be fun and fair in a group of recreational players passing chips around among themselves. But once you have a shark or two, you're gonna know it because your fish will be getting torn apart regularly (exactly what you're complaining about). I've been that shark multiple times, including in an infrequent friendly family game. Of course, it's great at first. Being a skilled player at a NLHE table full of clueless splashers is like printing money. But then players stop showing up, or you get uninvited, or the game breaks entirely.
It's inevitable, and it will remain inevitable as long as you're spreading big-bet poker. That structure alone, whether it's PL or NL, gives skilled players a massive, insurmountable edge against casual gamblers.
Containing your max buy-in to $10 should help at least slow the bleeding a little. Your bigger players may become less interested if there isn't as much to play for, which will spare your smaller players somewhat. Perhaps more importantly, it will reduce the skill factor in your game, giving the better players a little less of an edge. It may even frustrate them into making mistakes and losing money.
Running a tournament could help too. Limiting people's outlay will make the game more sustainable. However, you'll still be playing the same game that some players are dramatically better at than others, and those stronger players will end up ITM disproportionately more often than your weaker players.
But long-term, fixed-limit poker is the solution, at stakes that all your players are comfortable with. Sharks will still make money, but it won't be this slaughterhouse where they're stacking your weaker players one after the other or forcing them to play for much more than they're comfortable with. People have to be comfortable with the stakes and capable of walking away winners once in a while. They need to be having fun, not just paying some semi-pro's hourly. Limit poker offers that to a lot more players, whereas NLHE rewards your top performers greatly and sends your weaker players home with empty pockets.
Last edited:
People will NOT book their night and get permission from their boss (spouse/partner) or look for baby-sitting grandparents (the latter being a huge commodity in Greece ) to play just for 90-120 minutes and then just grab some food or drink quasi-excluded from the party.
Best is to split companies of friends into lower and upper poker crews, or, if impossible, cater primarily to the weak, stakes-wise and have a total cap per player per night, as @crussader has pointed out.
Total caps per night and PL pre-flop / NL post-flop are NOT weird rules at all IMO; imposed breaks are.
) to play just for 90-120 minutes and then just grab some food or drink quasi-excluded from the party.Best is to split companies of friends into lower and upper poker crews, or, if impossible, cater primarily to the weak, stakes-wise and have a total cap per player per night, as @crussader has pointed out.
Total caps per night and PL pre-flop / NL post-flop are NOT weird rules at all IMO; imposed breaks are.
Jimulacrum
Full House
I've literally never played in a game with a total nightly buy-in cap. Never seen it implemented in a casino or other professional cardroom either. It's most certainly a weird rule, or at minimum an uncommon one. It essentially shoehorns the freezeout element from tournaments into a cash game.
Same for PL preflop / NL post-flop. The only reason anyone ever seems to consider this rule is "because that guy keeps betting 'too much' before the flop" and people are too stubborn or unskilled to adjust their play to exploit it. Not really a good reason to impose an awkward hybrid betting structure. It's like forbidding check-raising because you have some old timers who get mad and make dumb mistakes when people do it.
Again, just play fixed limit. It will control most players' outlays for the night organically, and it will keep the cost of seeing a flop under control without having to employ a frankenstructure. It solves a lot of problems, short-term and long-term, and it makes for a much more sustainable game. When players give it a chance and realize that they still get to drag big pots and have a lot of fun, they'll forget all about the thrill of going all-in or whatever gimmick keeps them married to NL.
Of course, Limit, if known and palatable to the players, should be the safest solution for a tame cash game.
Otherwise, of course you 've never seen and you 'll never see a total cap per session in a casino or any rake-gathering game (they 're making a "living" out of money changing hands).
I still believe it's a good solution for home-game protection against wealthier maniac friends / acquaintances.
It also helps keep the game true to the supposed stakes, which may not be a necessity in a professional room earning money from the game, but it is, in a home between socially related people, IMO.
In homes, people are invited by the host to play specific stakes. If some people arrive with 1,000 or more BBs in their pockets and are allowed to eventually table them all, the invitation has not been precise / honest, IMO.
Otherwise, of course you 've never seen and you 'll never see a total cap per session in a casino or any rake-gathering game (they 're making a "living" out of money changing hands).
I still believe it's a good solution for home-game protection against wealthier maniac friends / acquaintances.
It also helps keep the game true to the supposed stakes, which may not be a necessity in a professional room earning money from the game, but it is, in a home between socially related people, IMO.
In homes, people are invited by the host to play specific stakes. If some people arrive with 1,000 or more BBs in their pockets and are allowed to eventually table them all, the invitation has not been precise / honest, IMO.
Jimulacrum
Full House
The vast majority of my play has been in unraked home games, and I haven't seen total caps in any of those either.
And just because it serves a purpose doesn't mean it isn't weird.
Here's where we rehash your assertion that 100 BB stacks make for a "normal" game, and any other structure isn't "true to the supposed stakes."
I couldn't disagree more. First of all, it's quite possible, though a little extreme, for a player to get 1,000 BB on the table even in a game with a 100 BB cap, if he's bad enough or has a rough enough night.
Secondly, there's nothing dishonest about saying you're running a $1/2 game just because some players bring $2K+ and may get it on the table, or because you have a 200 BB or 500 BB cap. It's honest and precise as long as you're clear upfront about the blinds and the buy-in limits. Just because your experience with $1/2 is that it's $200 max and most players only bring a couple bullets doesn't mean any game that plays differently isn't "true" $1/2.
First of all, the 1,000BB is a rough example, assuming 100BB standard or 60-150 variable min/max buy-ins (always "e.g.").
Nothing written on stone. In a game of 200BB standard buy-ins I 'd set the example at 2,000BBs.
Of course an invitation should include buy-in rules, in addition to stakes.
At the end of the day, the total cap per session is NOT about "true" or best poker; by no means.
It's just a suggestion (among others) to protect and keep tame a home game with the issues described by the OP, at the possible expense of an optimal poker experience (other suggestions may suffer from this too).
Nothing written on stone. In a game of 200BB standard buy-ins I 'd set the example at 2,000BBs.
Of course an invitation should include buy-in rules, in addition to stakes.
At the end of the day, the total cap per session is NOT about "true" or best poker; by no means.
It's just a suggestion (among others) to protect and keep tame a home game with the issues described by the OP, at the possible expense of an optimal poker experience (other suggestions may suffer from this too).
Jimulacrum
Full House
I can agree with that, even if I'm not on board with all the ways you prefer to do it. A host's primarily responsibilities are curating a good player pool and setting/enforcing rules that primarily protect the weaker players. Without that, the game isn't sustainable, and it's just a matter of time before it breaks up.
Amen!
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
