Cash Game Impact of equal SB/BB and question on denominations (1 Viewer)

[joseywales]

I run a social/family home game. Ages from 22-70 and it's a lot of fun. We still have some newer players and keep stakes low. Typically a $25 buyin for $17 in chips and food. $.25/$.50, $.50 is the minimum bet and x 2 to raise. Players see too many flops, but that's the social aspect right. Some newer guys bust out early and reloads are $15. I want to encourage more sound play, but also keep guys from reloading as much (hassle).

Denominations - I typically have 6 or 7 players. I rake $.25 from every hand that sees a flop, which goes towards a High Hand payout at the end of the night. So, having a few more $.25 chips on the table to start isn't the worst thing. Still, I feel like by the end of the night, there are a lot of chips on the table. I peruse stacks and honestly most are playable and it's late in the game before anyone is overstacked with $.25.

Currently, for a $17 stack:
$.25 x 12
$.50 x 8
$1 x 10
$15 reloads I'll put two or those back to the table, then introduce $5 chips. Perhaps I should introduce $5 sooner, or at least reduce the $.25 and $.50 in reloads:
$.25 x 12
$.50 x 8
$1 x 8

What I'm considering:
- increasing the initial buyin to $30, which would now be $23 starting stack. This reduces the reloads and $5 bills in a change drawer, (I might try Venmo here as well). But does it encourage reckless play? Players have more chips and feel they can bluff, see more hands, etc. Prior to me hosting, this was the thought behind this buyin in structure, but I'm wondering if it's counterproductive. Having more chips to start also permits a player, who is down $11 already, the chance to recoup if he hits a good hand. Now he has $12 in chips work with, as opposed to $6. Is this just something that is game/player specific and I just have to exercise trial and error?

- What impact does reducing BB to $.25 have on this game? When the action returns to them, the SB and BB have a choice and my hope is that the bet will be at least $1 and we'll see more folds, and players saving $.25 for another hand.

Thanks for any insight.

 

[Colquhoun]

The reason you're seeing so many bust-outs is that you have a $15 buy-in for a .25/.50 game. May as well spin a big wheel instead. No one has enough to play real poker. Once they see a couple flops, they're already in "push mode"
There should be at least 100bb on a buy-in, so yours should be $50 at those stakes.
In a cash game, any player should be able to add any amount to their stack, between hands, up to whatever you determine the max (100bb, 200bb, match the highest stack, etc.)

 

[FreeBop59]

If you increased the buy-in so that players would start with $23 and also changed the blinds to .25/.25, you would give your players much more play, reduce your reloads, and get closer to that 100 BB starting cash game amount that @Colquhoun mentioned.

 

[joseywales]

The reason you're seeing so many bust-outs is that you have a $15 buy-in for a .25/.50 game. May as well spin a big wheel instead. No one has enough to play real poker. Once they see a cuple flops, they're already in "push mode"
There should be at least 100bb on a buy-in, so yours should be $50 at those stakes.
In a cash game, any player should be able to add any amount to their stack, between hands, up to whatever you determine the max (100bb, 200bb, match the highest stack, etc.)

Thanks. I hear you. Again, the original intent was to keep guys from being careless and this was/is a very social. We tried to keep amounts low to to prevent guys from losing. That said, they're all adults, and players RARELY hesitate to reload once or twice, losing the $50 anyway. While I'm not sure I can "sell" $50 buyins, I might be able to get to $30 or $40. I'll dip my toe and see what happens.

 

[Kudos37]

I had a $.25/$.50 no max, (People would buy in for $60-80) and reduced to $.25/.25. I have a max of $40 initial buy in now and match the stack after that. It is a semi-casual game, nobody is a poker star.

Honestly, the preflop action stayed pretty close to the same. It is more tempting to limp with .25, but when someoen raises to 2.50, you know they have something.

With my game, i found that it is nice to have a smaller buy-in that isnt crazy. (Most people, if not all, make $30/hr+, so it isnt breaking the bank) When they do bust out, or want to add on, there isnt a huge push of "Oh I have to add on for another $80 more to stay in the game". $20-40 works great.

Yes, it does bring the amount of money down on the table, BUT I feel its better for the game.

 

[Tonystark137]

I would get rid of the 50c chip. A bit excessive in addition to the quarters. Up the max buy in or lower to 25/25c.

 

[SixSeven]

It's not standard but one thing you can also do is just have one blind of .25c. When I first started poker, it was a friendly social game with lots of action. That one .25c blind and $5 buy in. We respected 75 cent raises since we were so shallow. Most we would be out by end of night was 25 or 30 bucks. I just tried this again with my regs who play $50 max usually, and we had a great time, and quickly adjusted to playing only with $5. We realized we had to be a lot tighter. After a 1/2 hour, we went up to $20 and everyone still was doing 75 cent raises and playing as if they only had $5 to start, with regard to reraises and going all in.

With your situation, I would do $25 buy in and one blind. Having a second blind increases the chips needed and more chances the game might get bigger. Also, the starting with a smaller stack in the first 1/2 hour or 1 hour helps set the mind frame.

 

[roughrabbit]

My thoughts:
- What's the average food spend each time you host? For a full table, that's $56 (8*7), which isn't absurd for food spend for a game, but I think this is just a lot to take off the top of a low buyin game, and handicaps players to only 68% of their buy in. Maybe remove and encourage tipping instead.
- A rake for high hand is fine if that's what your players like. If they don't, it's just more money they might not realize that may feel wasted = further limping.
- I believe you're handcuffed for your goal of sound play at the stakes you're playing at. Players react based on their tolerance for risk and it sounds like players are seeing way too many flops at your current stakes just because they can. Your pool obviously has a low risk tolerance and enjoys the social aspect most. Best thing you could do is either raise the stakes and the blinds or allow deeper buyins. OR accept the level of play you're at.

Want to see more sound play in your current game without changing stakes? Be the change you want to see, raise the button, squeeze, 4 bet. If they don't see you do it, how will they ever learn?

 

[Jimulacrum]

The main thing you need to change is getting those $0.50 chips out of play. All you need are $0.25, $1, and $5 at the stakes you're playing. Sometimes 2x denominations are necessary in tournaments, but they're never useful and always a hassle in cash games.

Also, stop giving out $0.25 chips after the first round of buy-ins. You should also have enough $1 chips at that point too, so going with just $5s should be fine. You can always trade $0.25 and $1 chips into the game later if you find you really need them.

Also also, as @Colquhoun noted, your stack depths are very short (starts at 34 BB) for a NLHE game; 100 BB would be more typical. I think short stacks are fine in a group of mostly casual players, as it basically makes chance more of a factor in who wins and loses; however, it does mean you'll have more people busting out faster. Just the nature of the beast.

Is there a reason your buy-in and rebuys are in those awkward amounts, $17 + 8 and then $15 for rebuys instead of, say, $20 + 5 / $20 + 8 and $20 for rebuys? Just struck me as a little odd.

 

[Jimulacrum]

My thoughts:
- What's the average food spend each time you host? For a full table, that's $56 (8*7), which isn't absurd for food spend for a game, but I think this is just a lot to take off the top of a low buyin game, and handicaps players to only 68% of their buy in. Maybe remove and encourage tipping instead.

Yeah, that $8 doesn't sound like much in a vacuum but is a lot to trim off the top of a $25 buy-in. That said, if they all accept it, and it keeps the expenses covered, maybe it's not so bad.

- A rake for high hand is fine if that's what your players like. If they don't, it's just more money they might not realize that may feel wasted = further limping.

I could go either way on the promo. Sometimes people like that stuff. Helps spread the money around on an even-money basis too.

 

[Jimulacrum]

What I'm considering:
- increasing the initial buyin to $30, which would now be $23 starting stack. This reduces the reloads and $5 bills in a change drawer, (I might try Venmo here as well). But does it encourage reckless play? Players have more chips and feel they can bluff, see more hands, etc. Prior to me hosting, this was the thought behind this buyin in structure, but I'm wondering if it's counterproductive. Having more chips to start also permits a player, who is down $11 already, the chance to recoup if he hits a good hand. Now he has $12 in chips work with, as opposed to $6. Is this just something that is game/player specific and I just have to exercise trial and error?

- What impact does reducing BB to $.25 have on this game? When the action returns to them, the SB and BB have a choice and my hope is that the bet will be at least $1 and we'll see more folds, and players saving $.25 for another hand.

Thanks for any insight.

I recommend gravitating toward even $20 amounts for easier game management, but whether to raise the stakes is more a question of how much discretionary money your players have to put on the table. Do you sense they want to play bigger?

As to $5 bills, TBH I recommend just keeping a roll of $1 and $5 bills handy so you can manage cash-outs better, if this is ever an issue. As host it's best to be prepared for people to just bring loads of $20s. I do not recommend using Venmo at all for an in-person game.

Stack depths in your game are so short right now that there is not a lot of room for making plays at all. Players just have to gamble right out of the gate. This isn't 100% a bad thing, but this is to say that if you bump it to $30, it's close to the same situation. It really wouldn't make that much of a difference. Around $40 or $50 with a $0.50 BB (i.e., 80–100 BB) is where people will start to be able to "play poker" more, i.e., find room to play speculative hands, bluff, stuff like that. Or you could bump the blinds down and stick with the same structure to have the same effect without having to add more money in play.

 

[joseywales]

Thanks everyone. I'll think on this. To clarify, if it were up to me, I'd buyin at $50 and have at it. And I'm retired...

Anything that seems odd, was either by design, which was to keep things tight and maintained integrity of play. To be honest, it works a bit, but guys still gamble for fun. Our "recommended" max for the night was $50, so no one's crying. $2-2.50 pre-flop means a good pocket pair. $3 or more is AK or AA. $2 on the button could be a bluff. A $5 Turn bet was to prevent the River, or on River with a strong hand. All-in is usually the nuts, but last week we had a three-way all-in that was a hoot.

The odd $17 in chips, was simply to keep the initial buyin cheaper at $25, but have some food. We used to do $15, plus food, but it was a pain. I found that I for $7-$8 a head, I can consistently havee a variety of pizza and chicken fingers. I've tried to elevate that, but it's tough. I've thought about eliminating food, but guys get hungry later in the night. No one seems to care much about the food, other than as a filler. It's not a money maker, and I'm usually out the cost of a drive tip, snacks and water bottles that I put out. It's fun, so I'm good with that.

Guys say drop the $.50, but this a chip forum for crying out loud! Honestly, I'm not against it. I have various Majestics and ceramics, but am I wanting to buy a decent set, and my Sun Fly 43mm seems to be what we all prefer, but before I do that I need to settle on denominations. I had a nice set of Terribles, which I sold a while back, but my guys simply don't appreciate them and I couldn't stand it if the chips began to degrade. Let players who appreciate them have the set.

 

[springbox]

Heavily recommend trying 25c/25c or a single 25c blind. Short stacking is fine, especially as it creates a more even playing field, but it's naturally going to lead to frequent all ins and rebuys. If you're sitting on a $15 stack, someone opens to $2 and you want to 3-bet you're pretty much fully committed to going all-in. Could you swing a $20 buy in plus $5 for food? That's an 80BB with a 25c BB and rounder numbers. Otherwise $23+$7 works fine. Agree on cut the 50c, hand out more quarters to start and none in reloads (unless you're taking too many off the table for HH). 50c has its place, something like 10c/50c/$1 or just 50c/$1, but with both quarters and dollars its so redundant.

 

[Jimulacrum]

50c has its place, something like 10c/50c/$1 or just 50c/$1, but with both quarters and dollars its so redundant.

No. NEVAH. Just play 1/1.

I love fracs as much as the next guy, but as the person who often sits near the middle and manages the pot, please don't use them in spots where they're just an unnecessary small blind. It's all downside and no real benefit, even if you're only playing NLHE.

 

[joseywales]

Thanks again for all of the insight and perspectives.

I'm leaning toward $40, for $33 in chips. at $.25/$.50 that's 66BB. I believe we average 17 hands per hour, but am introducing a back shuffle, so hoping to get closer see more than 20 hands hour.

If I introduce $1/$1, or $.50/$1, I'll lose players and we struggle most weeks to get 6 or 7. It's not the money perse', but they're not all as skilled, so even if they did play, the game would get so tight it wouldn't be as fun, which for this game is the priority. That's the tough balance really. I know some of my players play tournaments, etc., so perhaps I need to seek those out to play a game with higher integrity an just enjoy my home game for what it is. Time will tell.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Thanks again for all of the insight and perspectives.

I'm leaning toward $40, for $33 in chips. at $.25/$.50 that's 66BB. I believe we average 17 hands per hour, but am introducing a back shuffle, so hoping to get closer see more than 20 hands hour.

If your players can support it, this is probably the best option. Gets the game a little deeper and makes that $7–8 food collection a little less of a bite.

If I introduce $1/$1, or $.50/$1, I'll lose players and we struggle most weeks to get 6 or 7. It's not the money perse', but they're not all as skilled, so even if they did play, the game would get so tight it wouldn't be as fun, which for this game is the priority. That's the tough balance really.

From the sound of things, I would not consider going to a $1 blind structure. I only even mentioned that above in response to a suggestion of $0.50/1 (NEVAH!).

I know some of my players play tournaments, etc., so perhaps I need to seek those out to play a game with higher integrity an just enjoy my home game for what it is. Time will tell.

What do you mean by "higher integrity"?

 

[Machine]

IF I was an outlaw, here is what I would do:

1) stop playing holdem
2) stop taking money off of the top of the buy-in

I have a seat fee, its 10 bucks and often if its not BBQ it's a home-cooked meal, well worth the cost. Some guys like to top off some are fine to have it out of the buy-in.

back to the first point. Pot Limit is a better game. I would argue if you want to have a social game, get the guys to play Pot limit circus games, 6 or 7 handed is perfect and the fun will be off the chart, you'll pick up players even I bet. Everyone will be in the same boat. play .10/.10 toss out the .25s and keep the .50s.

Learn the games ahead of time, play from the dealer to the dealer and the next guy calls the game. Pick up some of the circus game cards, the Group is about to close. play $2 showdown pots to kick off the game so the guys can learn it, then play .1/.1 it will be blast!

 

[Jimulacrum]

IF I was an outlaw, here is what I would do:

1) stop playing holdem
2) stop taking money off of the top of the buy-in

I have a seat fee, its 10 bucks and often if its not BBQ it's a home-cooked meal, well worth the cost. Some guys like to top off some are fine to have it out of the buy-in.

back to the first point. Pot Limit is a better game. I would argue if you want to have a social game, get the guys to play Pot limit circus games, 6 or 7 handed is perfect and the fun will be off the chart, you'll pick up players even I bet. Everyone will be in the same boat. play .10/.10 toss out the .25s and keep the .50s.

Learn the games ahead of time, play from the dealer to the dealer and the next guy calls the game. Pick up some of the circus game cards, the Group is about to close. play $2 showdown pots to kick off the game so the guys can learn it, then play .1/.1 it will be blast!

I can't disagree with this. OP might, but I don't.

 

[TheYeti]

This has already been mentioned but a $25 buy in for 25¢/50¢ game is ridiculously low (50bb), and then you immediately take $8 off the top so I only get $17 in chips (34bb)? Then if I bust I only get to re-buy for $15 (30bb). Say what!? Add to this the removal of roughly 8bb per hour from the table for the high hand...to say this is unorthodox would be an understatement.

If your players are unwilling to accept a higher buy in, lower your stakes to 25¢/25¢, keep the buy in at $25, and do not skim off your players stacks for food (see below). For the high hand, have your players buy in before they see their first hand ($2-$3 each, this can be paid in cash or chips).

I provide food for my players, but I keep it as cheap as possible. I only buy pizzas that are on special (~$45 for 4 larges), hot dogs with chips/dip (~$35), nachos (~$25), etc. This tends to feed everyone (10 players) and there's usually food left over. I put out a donation bucket and have only come up short by a few bucks once or twice, most times I'm a bit long.

 

[SteveEH]

I don't recommend encouraging more "sound play." I was like this when I started studying the game, but the majority of my friends didn't care about strategy. I recommend adapting to the players at your table instead.

I would poll your players and find the median of how much they're comfortable risking to gamble for the entire night, excluding food costs. From there I would set the expectation each player brings 3 100 BB buy ins. If you're leaning towards $33 in chips, that would be just over 3 100 BB buy ins ($10 each) with .05/.10 (or .10/.10) blinds.

Pot limit is friendlier.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I don't recommend encouraging more "sound play." I was like this when I started studying the game, but the majority of my friends didn't care about strategy. I recommend adapting to the players at your table instead.

Yeah, this is a fixation some players fall into before they realize there's no value in it. You don't want a game full of players who are into studying strategy and playing smart. It may sound nice in theory to have opponents who will "respect your raises" and will generally play in a more predictable manner than feels less risky, i.e., closer to your understanding of skilled play.

But the truth is that games with this kind of field are the most governed by chance. Once everyone is around the same skill level—whether that's high skill or total mindless gambling—it's the fall of the cards that's the primary driver of who wins and loses.

Pot limit is friendlier.

Pot limit is friendlier but also harder to manage, especially for casual players. All the work of counting and managing pots will likely land on the shoulders of one or two players, one of them probably the host in this situation. Especially with the short stacks, it's probably more work than it's worth in this game.

 

[SteveEH]

Pot limit is friendlier but also harder to manage, especially for casual players. All the work of counting and managing pots will likely land on the shoulders of one or two players, one of them probably the host in this situation. Especially with the short stacks, it's probably more work than it's worth in this game.

This is true. What helps my game are these rules:

1. You cannot say "pot." Instead, announce the dollar amount of your bet (unless it's obviously lower than the pot).

2. If you think someone is betting too much you can challenge them.

I wish I could remember the PCFer that taught me this to give them thanks...

 

[joseywales]

Yeah, this is a fixation some players fall into before they realize there's no value in it. You don't want a game full of players who are into studying strategy and playing smart. It may sound nice in theory to have opponents who will "respect your raises" and will generally play in a more predictable manner than feels less risky, i.e., closer to your understanding of skilled play.

But the truth is that games with this kind of field are the most governed by chance. Once everyone is around the same skill level—whether that's high skill or total mindless gambling—it's the fall of the cards that's the primary driver of who wins and loses.

Interesting. I think my son created the problem here! He was rarely at my game, and when he attended, he played loose. Loose than some of my loosest players. So much so, I felt bad he was losing. COVID hit, and guess who obsessed online poker and became a student of the game??? Now he's playing more strategy then most of my players, my self included. He and one other are try to play closes to strategy. We have a couple who understand it for the most part, but play a more relaxed game at my table. And couple players, where any two cards can win.

Anyway, when my son took me down once I thought, he explained how and I thought. Ok...now he's a player. So I'm tempted to push the game a bit, but you're point is likely valid here. My goal for this game has been fun, and don't lose. I don't freak if I lose, and don't need to win, but $50 a night adds up, for THIS game. I'm fine with higher stakes, but this is for fun. That's why I posted that perhaps I need to find a second game to scratch the itch.

 

[joseywales]

If your players can support it, this is probably the best option. Gets the game a little deeper and makes that $7–8 food collection a little less of a bite.


From the sound of things, I would not consider going to a $1 blind structure. I only even mentioned that above in response to a suggestion of $0.50/1 (NEVAH!).


What do you mean by "higher integrity"?

Just a bit less gambling really.

 

[joseywales]

I don't recommend encouraging more "sound play." I was like this when I started studying the game, but the majority of my friends didn't care about strategy. I recommend adapting to the players at your table instead.

I would poll your players and find the median of how much they're comfortable risking to gamble for the entire night, excluding food costs. From there I would set the expectation each player brings 3 100 BB buy ins. If you're leaning towards $33 in chips, that would be just over 3 100 BB buy ins ($10 each) with .05/.10 (or .10/.10) blinds.

Pot limit is friendlier.

$50 night is where we've all been for a while. A couple guys are now fresh out of college, so I'm fine keeping it there.

Pot limit...hmm. If it were my old crew, I'd say forget it. They'll never change. This gang, it is "possible".

 

[Jimulacrum]

Just a bit less gambling really.

You gotta learn to embrace the gambling, my friend. That's where all the profit and excitement live.

 

[WedgeRock]

Skimmed mostly. Alot of good advice.

Agree that stacks are too shallow. For $25 - $8 for food = $17, just give them $50 (or a clean 3x for $51) in chips. Make sure to divide by 3 for cash outs, with anything that doesn't divide evenly going to the HHJ.

Now everyone has 100xBB.

Also agree to just using 25¢ (blinds 25¢/50¢) or 50¢ (blinds 50¢/50¢) chips, not both

 

[SteveEH]

$50 night is where we've all been for a while. A couple guys are now fresh out of college, so I'm fine keeping it there.

$50 is only two 100 BB buy ins at .25/.25. Not enough IMO. $60 and 3 80 BB buy ins would be my minimum.

 

[bmacpoker]

It's actually something I struggle explaining to my crew when they play, deeper play is better for keeping a healthy stack for a long period of time.

We started with $20 buy ins with a 5c/10c game. We often still do that, because the $20 is more palatable for additional players. But the thing is, no one does a standard open anyway. You might see 50c or 75c early on, but quickly you start seeing 15-20 BB opens because everyone just calls with any two cards otherwise.

So naturally the all ins come early, we match the stack, the blinds become irrelevant in a way. I would rather just do $100 25c/50c and people wouldn't get stacked as much, and may actually end up stuck for less by the end of the night. Just a tough sell.

Long story short, I think 25c/25c is the answer. Buy ins can be 30ish, the bet sizing makes sense, etc.

Only other thought, not sure if anyone suggested, but spread limits instead of no limi could work as well. Cap bets at $3 or something.

 

[Kam]

Agree with most of the above (except I like fracs vs no fracs debate), for those buy in amounts, I think 0.25/0.25 blinds is as high as you want to go.

I always prefer minimum 100 BB up to 200 BB for starting stacks. I hate low buy ins with fewer higher denom chips issued.

For $0.25/0.50 I do $50-$100 buy ins, initial buy in is a barrel of fracs, a barrel of $1s for a total of $25 and the rest in $5s to get them between $50-$100 (this does end up with too many fracs, but oh well):

For $0.5/$1, I do $100-$200 buy ins, the below racks are setup for max buy in. Average was about $150, only 8 fracs issued:

The $1/$1 comments earlier I understand as examples, but really you should reduce the big blind amount. I also split cost for pizza, but that’s separate from the above buy in amounts.

GL