I was just typing pretty much exactly this
How Do You Handle Private Game Massive Change In Stakes From What You Were Told? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Anthony Martino
- Start date
OP
OP
Anthony Martino
Royal Flush
At the end of the day if the host had said it would be a game permitting 25/50 straddles I wouldn't have even shown up, as I'm not rolled for that, and not looking to play preflop bingo with 10-20bb stacks.
I want to play postflop poker. If I wanted to get stacks in preflop in Omaha games constantly I'd just go to a casino and play roulette and at least I'd be earning comps
I want to play postflop poker. If I wanted to get stacks in preflop in Omaha games constantly I'd just go to a casino and play roulette and at least I'd be earning comps
Agree with this too. When I'm hosting I advise everyone of the stakes for the night and the min and max initial buy ins and the rule for topping off. Usually do half the big stack or the max initial buy in, whichever is larger any given time. Also cap straddles at three. @Irish and I generally have the same house rules and have more or less the same PCF regulars. The guys know what to expect. Usually we see more straddling from the stuck players (i.e. me) later in the night but the starting blinds always stay the same.
tabletalker7
Full House
My players were debating upping the stakes once. So I took a poll of the players to find out if everyone wanted to for our next game, not the current game. Very few actually voted to raise it. Sometimes a few weird hands can convince someone that raising the stake will either help them get even or maximize their profits that night. Such changes should not be made same day.
bergs
Royal Flush
Here’s what you do:
1. Go to the kitchen to get a snack
2. Open the flour container in his kitchen
3. Put both hands in and grab a fistful
4. Throw it in the air and with your arms outstretched yell “ITS LAWN GNOME TIME”
5. Sit down with $100 at the 25/50 game and announce “ALL IN BLIND FIRST HAND GNOME TIME HUAH”
6. If you bust flip the table over and leave like the Miz stomping out of the arena
7. If you win, repeat steps 1-4 until he asks you to leave and requests that you bake a cake.
1. Go to the kitchen to get a snack
2. Open the flour container in his kitchen
3. Put both hands in and grab a fistful
4. Throw it in the air and with your arms outstretched yell “ITS LAWN GNOME TIME”
5. Sit down with $100 at the 25/50 game and announce “ALL IN BLIND FIRST HAND GNOME TIME HUAH”
6. If you bust flip the table over and leave like the Miz stomping out of the arena
7. If you win, repeat steps 1-4 until he asks you to leave and requests that you bake a cake.
bergs
Royal Flush
You’re never going back anyway.
Be memorable.
Be memorable.
OP
OP
Anthony Martino
Royal Flush
Kain8
Flush
Here we have a microcosm of the "poker" landscape at large. It's not about making EV decisions on multiple streets of betting. Get that intellectual bullshit out of here!!! It's just about the all-in dopamine hit. The money is by and large immaterial to these people, provided you're financially secured enough for the stacks and stakes.
Not even big bet poker is enough these days at times. You have to raise the stakes, do bomb pots, double board bomb pots, seven deuce game, and last man standing to juice the action even MORE. Anything and everything must be thrown at a game in order to increase the volatility and reduce the effect one's own skill within the parameters of actually playing the game you sat down for.
Stick to crushing the rubes at the Lodge Anthony and leave the all-in maniacs to their own devices.
Poker has always been like this to some extent, at least over the last 20 years since Moneymaker. There have always been players who see it just as another way to get their gamble on, and there have always been deep pocketed players who will just buy in and bust over and over.
It seems to be worse in some places like The Lodge, but IMO that's because they encourage it for the views and the brand. I don't think The Lodge is a representative snapshot of poker everywhere.
My current weekly game is kind of like this, but the host is very, very good about protecting the game.
He allows bomb pots and last man standing, so the gamblers and action players get the blood that they want. But he also keeps the stakes low enough to be comfortable for everyone, and he strictly enforces the buy-in caps.
I'm not a fan of uncapped/match-the-stack home games. It's just too easy to skin your losing players and kill the game.
Jimulacrum
Full House
Reducing the edge of skilled players would be a good thing for the health of the game.
Unfortunately, a lot of these measures don't reduce skill edge like you might think. They actually increase it.
Double-board Hold'em and Omaha add split-pot and card-removal elements that make the games more difficult. Seven-deuce and last man standing (I'm assuming this is like the "nit game") both add exploitable elements that skilled players adjust to faster than recreational players. Bomb pots make stack depths shallower, but they make ranging more difficult and put more emphasis on later-round play.
Features like these favor skilled players and make whales happy, but they set up passive, low-skill players (the most fertile ground for a good game) to get fleeced even faster than standard big-bet poker.
People who rarely win are bound to eventually get sick of the game. We should make this take as long as possible if we want a healthy poker ecosystem.
Jimulacrum
Full House
As to the original premise of the thread, there's a "social contract" when people arrive at a game expecting to play certain stakes or variants. Everyone has effectively agreed in advance that that's what they're playing.
Any changes to those basics should be made unanimously or not at all. If a host will suddenly change a game from 1/2/5/10 to 5/5/10/25/50 without all players agreeing to it, what else might he do? You have to go with the flow sometimes in poker, but not all the time, and an unannounced quintupling of the stakes is a good place to draw the line.
Rack up and leave. If the host asks why you're out early, tell him it's because the game you came to play ended early.
Any changes to those basics should be made unanimously or not at all. If a host will suddenly change a game from 1/2/5/10 to 5/5/10/25/50 without all players agreeing to it, what else might he do? You have to go with the flow sometimes in poker, but not all the time, and an unannounced quintupling of the stakes is a good place to draw the line.
Rack up and leave. If the host asks why you're out early, tell him it's because the game you came to play ended early.
In my current game, playing a bomb pot (double board NLHE) is like buying a $2 lottery ticket. These pots get big fast, and someone's stack almost always ends up in the middle.
Most of the time I whiff and fold, but when I bink one or both boards, I'm pretty much guaranteed to win some or all of a huge pot.
The skill factor is mostly just having patience and being able to lay down strongish one-way hands.
I don't even like asking players for these types of changes, let alone making them unannounced.
If you have one or two players who don't want to bump the stakes, you shouldn't be pressuring them at the table to do so. It's a dick host move.
Jimulacrum
Full House
Sure. You're a skilled player. After years and years of playing, you have the ability to sit down, look at a new game, and cobble together something resembling a winning strategy. Recreational players don't have these tools at their disposal. Even many experienced players don't.
That said, I don't hate double-board bomb pots, in terms of game health, as much as I hate some other features. Splitting the pot means the money gets spread around more per hand, on average. Larger starting pot punishes nittery and rewards risk-taking, at least more than the vanilla game. These factors are good. Overall, I think skilled players still make out, but it could be worse.
The 27 and last-man-standing features, though they spur bigger action, add strategically relevant nuances to the game that recreational players are unlikely to ever adjust for properly. Skilled players will adjust, though, and especially in a NL/PL game, these rules will become a new source of exploitation.
Kain8
Flush
Disclaimer:
I just can't get over the fact that these novelties needed to be introduced or implemented in the first place. The whole point (at least my understanding) that no-limit displaced limit was the edge of being able to wager any amount on your action. But then as time went on, the bad players either wised up or went broke. I've said it before, but I feel it's worth repeating. If you need to introduce some or most of these catalysts just to spur action in BIG-BET poker, then your lineup or the very game itself freaking sucks.
bergs
Royal Flush
OR you have pure Degens that need to maximize any and all action whenever possible and no amount of action is too much for them.Disclaimer:
I just can't get over the fact that these novelties needed to be introduced or implemented in the first place. The whole point (at least my understanding) that no-limit displaced limit was the edge of being able to wager any amount on your action. But then as time went on, the bad players either wised up or went broke. I've said it before, but I feel it's worth repeating. If you need to introduce some or most of these catalysts just to spur action in BIG-BET poker, then your lineup or the very game itself freaking sucks.
This!
My weekly game is amazing, and it's BECAUSE I have players who want these extras.
Bomb pots make the game more fun for them. They love the action.
NotRealNameNoSir
4 of a Kind
You're right, in a gambling game, you're ridiculous for wanting more gambling! Just silly!!!Disclaimer:
I just can't get over the fact that these novelties needed to be introduced or implemented in the first place. The whole point (at least my understanding) that no-limit displaced limit was the edge of being able to wager any amount on your action. But then as time went on, the bad players either wised up or went broke. I've said it before, but I feel it's worth repeating. If you need to introduce some or most of these catalysts just to spur action in BIG-BET poker, then your lineup or the very game itself freaking sucks.
Personally I’m with you Kain. I have plenty of fun playing straight NLHE.Disclaimer:
I just can't get over the fact that these novelties needed to be introduced or implemented in the first place. The whole point (at least my understanding) that no-limit displaced limit was the edge of being able to wager any amount on your action. But then as time went on, the bad players either wised up or went broke. I've said it before, but I feel it's worth repeating. If you need to introduce some or most of these catalysts just to spur action in BIG-BET poker, then your lineup or the very game itself freaking sucks.
I guess we can all play our games the way we want. I’d say “just don’t call me a nit and I won’t call you a degen” except some people love to call themselves degens, so I don’t know. I really need a shrug emoji.
Same here, exactly.
Rakrul
Straight
I've never seen a good argument for match the stack except for nosebleed levels. I have max 100bb buy-in at my home game and it never changes even when avg. stacks are 3-400bbs.
Kain8
Flush
The problem solving part of my brain just can't wrap my head around it. You have a proven popular game that is played around the world. If you don't go into the minutiae of Robert's Rules of Poker, then the game is very simple to understand even after a few orbits for the newest of players. I think a lot of NLHE players are just incredibly stubborn, obstinate, or are so far gone in sunken cost fallacy. Any halfway competent player who has played for years to decades understands that by and large, NLHE cash games are DULL. You're out of the action (at least to be a winning player) at least 70-80% of the time, of which that equilibrium shifts depending on other external game factors.
The other 20-30% of the time? A good majority of that is one post-flop street of betting, maybe two streets. But having three streets of geometrically increasing betting between players? That's either a cooler or someone running a big bluff. Those hands may arise once or twice an hour if you're at a table with mostly decent players.
So over the course of an hour you'll see two players really go to war very seldom. The rest of the time you're folding preflop over and over, posting blinds, folding those usually too, and making the occasional preflop raise / 3-bet.
So what is a NLHE only troglodyte to do? Admit the game isn't as good as it once was and learn more games? Or throw new gimmicks into the mix instead? Sadly, the latter has been chosen for quite some time.
I’m all for playing other games. But I’ll stand by my statement that NLHE can be fun on its own. We’re usually playing 6 or 7 handed and pretty far from optimal. But most of us aren’t looking to grind money out of a quarters game. Neither nits nor degens but somewhere in between.
NotRealNameNoSir
4 of a Kind
100% agreed - finding new ways to gamble is just because NLHE is boring, thats why you dont see people betting on other things they have no control over.
The standup game and 7-2 game are ridiculous, and so are blinds; if you dont want to bet, you shouldnt have to. Just another gimmick to liven up a boring game.
Kain8
Flush
You clearly aren't playing in the right games. My weekly game is off the rails.
If you can't find a NLHE game with good action (and thus start printing money), find some like-minded players and learn a bunch of circus games.
(Once you wrap your brain around those, you'll start to truly understand how boring it is to play solid 100bb NLHE!)
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.
