Home Game Bad Beat Pay Out - Chips or Cash? (1 Viewer)

TheYeti

Pair
Joined
Mar 31, 2021
Messages
170
Reaction score
234
Location
Rapid City, SD
I have a progressive Bad Beat Jackpot at the home game I host. This game is mostly regulars and all friends of mine (or friends of friends). We fund the Bad Beat by raking $5 from every Bomb Pot and rounding all players down to the nearest $5 at cash out. The jackpot has only hit once since I started it a few months ago, and I paid it out in cash.

I've been toying with the idea of paying it out in chips instead of cash, that way keeping the money "in play". However, I know that casinos will always pay out in cash.

What are your guys' thoughts about it? I'm on the fence about it, but leaning towards keeping it cash.
 
38d5110c-74b8-4d58-b0c2-e51850e9b1bb_text.gif
 
Recommend paying out in cash.

As much as it would be nice to juice the current game with the bad-beat payout, it would generally be better for the health of the game to pay in cash and let the winner decide whether to put any of it in play. The money will tend to circulate back around anyway.

Forcing it to be in play could have unfortunate consequences. Imagine if your fishiest fish binks the bad beat and then loses the whole prize that same night. Or just cashes out and leaves rather than risk it all. Seems like a recipe for people to get sore.
 
Why would you rake from the game and take money out of the action?
 
Cash.

That’s money that has already been taken out of the game and if it doesn’t get hit for a while, money that been out for a long time anyway.
 
That's the entire point of paying it out in chips.

And it's happened :cool
I get the short-term incentive. If I were a player who didn't care about the long-term health of the game, I'd want this every time.

But for the long term, you want that fishy fish to be able to go home with the money.

That may be his only win for months. Let him hold onto it, at least for the night. He will pay you back in spades.
 
I get the short-term incentive. If I were a player who didn't care about the long-term health of the game, I'd want this every time.

But for the long term, you want that fishy fish to be able to go home with the money.

That may be his only win for months. Let him hold onto it, at least for the night. He will pay you back in spades.
Nah, those guys stopped coming years ago.

Only the Degens have made it to year 10 of Windy Crest.
 
I get the short-term incentive. If I were a player who didn't care about the long-term health of the game, I'd want this every time.

But for the long term, you want that fishy fish to be able to go home with the money.

That may be his only win for months. Let him hold onto it, at least for the night. He will pay you back in spades.
With that assumption won’t he just get felted then rebuy w the cash he won? Why would he go home with it?
 
I would pay it out in chips but let them decide how much they want to put on the table.
 
I'm good either way, but at my games it is paid out at the end of the night, in cash.

The whole reason I started having bonuses was to increase the number of times that a loser would take home something. Forcing it into play negates that.

I'm fine if the host pays it out in chips. Depending on how big the jackpot is (relative to the average buy-in) paying out in chips can seriously change the game.

Examples:
  • Buy-ins are $100, or 1/2 the big stack. Typically 3-4 players rebuy during the night each rebuying for $100 with Mr Superfish rebuying 2-3 time a night. All transactions are cash for chips. Jackpot is won at $500. This isn't going to change the game much, especially if the game has played this way for years. Rebuys and such will still be the same with the same rebuys, because that is what players bring to lose. Perhaps the Jackpot winner could make a few more hero calls, because he's well up. The bluffer that is caught by the hero call may get the grumbles
  • Buy-ins are $100, or 1/2 the big stack. Typically 7-8 players rebuy each night. By the time the big stack has $400 in front, rebuys get bigger. Mr Superfish drops $1000 a night. All transactions are cash for chips. Jackpot is won at $500. Nothing is going to change. If the Jackpot is hit early, the game will play noticablly larger by the end of the night, and Mr Superfish may have his pockets emptied sooner. It may be the first time you hear someone ask "Do you take Venmo?"
  • Buy-ins are $100, or 1/2 the big stack. Typically 4-5 players rebuy each night. Most players just rebuy for another $100, but Johnny Moneybags always gets a count for 1/2 the big stack (and will try to cajole his way to "just round it up to the next hundred". Venmo is accepted. Jackpot is won at $1000. This could be a game breaker, as while you are counting out the Jackpot chips, Johnny is looking to refresh his stack to $500... 5x the typical buy-in. The game is now playing larger than the players are used to, and a level of discomfort sets in, as the game goes from a poker match to a high-stakes game of bingo.
This is just a sample of how different games play and react, just using the same starting buy-in. Jackpot sizes will vary depending on the difficulty of success and the amount taken. So while PCF may be divided, it is not because payout in chips or cash is better. It is because different games play differently. Some can handle the swing. Some would bathe in the infusion of chips. Yet others could leave players on a budget uneasy.

Paying out in cash doesn't change anything for anyone, except for the guy winning it - and he gets to decide on how his money is spent.
 
I agree with all of your observations except this one.
The game is now playing larger than the players are used to, and a level of discomfort sets in, as the game goes from a poker match to a high-stakes game of bingo.
In general, the deeper the stacks relative to blinds, the more skill is a factor in players' outcomes. Quite the opposite of a bingo situation.

But it's still a bad thing because players—including the fishy fish who won the jackpot—are playing outside their comfort zone, and losses will hurt more.

Never cater to the skilled players. They'll keep grinding out that rent money. If you have to make adjustments, favor the recs.
 
In general, the deeper the stacks relative to blinds, the more skill is a factor in players' outcomes. Quite the opposite of a bingo situation.
This could be a bad analogy. I was thinking of the deep-pockets guy that isn't afraid to pressure opponents that are playing deeper than they are comfortable with. They can jam with air, knowing they can will never be called by a bluff-catcher. This isn't skill, at all. It's money vs money. I'm betting with an hours pay against your weekly paycheck. I don't have to look at my cards, because (extreme variance notwithstanding) you will hit your tolerance for pain long before I will.

To me, that is high-stakes bingo. Maybe there's a better term, since "bingo" does often refer to short-stacked poker.
 
This could be a bad analogy. I was thinking of the deep-pockets guy that isn't afraid to pressure opponents that are playing deeper than they are comfortable with. They can jam with air, knowing they can will never be called by a bluff-catcher. This isn't skill, at all. It's money vs money. I'm betting with an hours pay against your weekly paycheck. I don't have to look at my cards, because (extreme variance notwithstanding) you will hit your tolerance for pain long before I will.

To me, that is high-stakes bingo. Maybe there's a better term, since "bingo" does often refer to short-stacked poker.
Bingo is bingo because it's a chance game with little to no skill involved. I still see very little chance involved in what you're describing.

Even if a player has shallower pockets, the benefit he gains by gambling with the chip bully is proportional to the reward. Skill is much more of a factor in this than it would be in, say, a game where players can all play their preferred styles comfortably without a bully.

I can agree that it's a tougher game for the shallow-pocketed player, though. Probably makes the game too serious and less fun for most players who just want to gamble on some cards with friends. Definitely not a favorable game condition unless it's really what the players want.
 
  • Buy-ins are $100, or 1/2 the big stack. Typically 3-4 players rebuy during the night each rebuying for $100 with Mr Superfish rebuying 2-3 time a night. All transactions are cash for chips. Jackpot is won at $500. This isn't going to change the game much, especially if the game has played this way for years. Rebuys and such will still be the same with the same rebuys, because that is what players bring to lose. Perhaps the Jackpot winner could make a few more hero calls, because he's well up. The bluffer that is caught by the hero call may get the grumbles
  • Buy-ins are $100, or 1/2 the big stack. Typically 7-8 players rebuy each night. By the time the big stack has $400 in front, rebuys get bigger. Mr Superfish drops $1000 a night. All transactions are cash for chips. Jackpot is won at $500. Nothing is going to change. If the Jackpot is hit early, the game will play noticablly larger by the end of the night, and Mr Superfish may have his pockets emptied sooner. It may be the first time you hear someone ask "Do you take Venmo?"
  • Buy-ins are $100, or 1/2 the big stack. Typically 4-5 players rebuy each night. Most players just rebuy for another $100, but Johnny Moneybags always gets a count for 1/2 the big stack (and will try to cajole his way to "just round it up to the next hundred". Venmo is accepted. Jackpot is won at $1000. This could be a game breaker, as while you are counting out the Jackpot chips, Johnny is looking to refresh his stack to $500... 5x the typical buy-in. The game is now playing larger than the players are used to, and a level of discomfort sets in, as the game goes from a poker match to a high-stakes game of bingo.

Example 1 would be our game to a T. I don't see our bad beat jackpot ever growing much beyond $400-$500 before it hits. The qualifying hand is quads over full house, we play once a month for 6-7 hours, and we are only adding around $50 a month to the bad beat. I think it's reasonable to expect it to hit at least once every 6 months.
 

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