Cash Game Interesting Problem (1 Viewer)

[Ellasdaddy]

Now that I've hosted monthly games for friends and family, featuring mostly the same characters, I've gained insight into being a better host and banker. But I'm dealing with an unexpected issue that's dragged the last 3 gatherings and action down a bit, this being that my players play way above the limit of the game but without putting much money on the table. I have no clue how to fix this.

It took a Herculean effort to convince everyone to play a cash game at all, but once it took off, it stuck. In the 1st game, after 2 hours, I had a couple of friends who were "down" ask me to raise the stakes from .25/.50 to $1/1 so they could get even. I didn't do that, for the integrity of the game and future games, and because nobody would put down more than $20, if they even had more on them anyway. Also, standard PF raises became $3+ bc anything less got 6-7 limpers... And post flop play often became for stacks or were a single $5 bet and folds around. This killed most of the action and sent people home much earlier than expected. One person eventually bought back in for another $20. Easily exploited and very profitable, but not much fun and conducive to a great game that people want to return to.

I dropped hints and others made jokes/remarks about big early bets in a .25/.50 game and how the game dried up, and I tried to tactfully note that $20 isnt near enough to make $1/1 playable. Don't know if there's anything I can do to fix this without scaring people off or seeming money-hungry. How do I aid their transition from tournaments to cash games?

 

[btbmason]

If nobody puts down more than $20, .25/.50 is way too high already as everyone only starts with 40BB.

I'd suggest lowering the blinds to at the most .25/.25 giving people more play for their money and hopefully keeping the game running longer.

If they're used to playing tournaments, they probably wouldn't want to start a tournament with 20BB or 40BB right? Try to compare it to that, setup a tournament where everyone starts with T1000 and start the blinds at 25/50 and see how they like it.

 

[Trihonda]

Unfortunate it seems like your game is growing, and not in the best way... I played a monthly game for 15 years with my buds, that consisted of $20 buyins and we used spread limits to keep things friendly. That said, the game has since died out, and we no longer get together. This makes me sad, since those mixed dealers choice games were a lot of fun, granted, there were so many etiquette issues that would now tilt me to no end, but that's another issue altogether... no I know better. Back in those days, I couldn't imagine putting $100 into a poker game, but now I have no issue if I'm into a game for a few $300 buy ins. People and their game comfort level change as their skill improves,

The spread limits (rules) we put in place were max bet/raise of $2, min bet was ante, which was always $.25 if we forgot to declare when naming the game. We also did a max burn of $10, when playing games that required matching the pot when you'd lose.

To speak to your situation, I'd agree that lower the blinds is the only viable solution given the cap at $20 buys. The issue is you have gambly types that want to toss $20 in the middle and flip. This isn't a bad thing, but it's not good poker. You're at an impass as the gambly type players and the old nits are colliding. They aren't a good fit. You either need to increase your buy ins, or put rules in place to restrict betting. You can't make everyone happy.

 

[upNdown]

Are they otherwise competent tournament players? I don't understand how people who understand tournament poker can't understand cash, and vice-versa. I know they're very different, but figure it out!
Good luck. I'd definitely suggest lowering the blinds to .25/./25 but they probably won't like that either.

 

[Rhodeman77]

My recommendation was exactly what @Trihonda suggested already. Change the game to spread limit. Also lowering the blinds to 25c/25c would help a small amount.

Make the betting from 25c up to $2 max.

Or try getting them to play full limit poker. 25c small bets and 50c big bets.

 

[RowdyRawhide]

My recommendation was exactly what @Trihonda suggested already. Change the game to spread limit. Also lowering the blinds to 25c/25c would help a small amount.

Make the betting from 25c up to $2 max.

Or try getting them to play full limit poker. 25c small bets and 50c big bets.

^^^^I think these two options are the only way to change your game with $20 buyins.

Even if you lower the blinds your still going to see post flop short stack style shoves.

If you want to keep playing NL then you are going to have to raise the min buy in...to probably at least $50-60

 

[justsomedude]

I dropped hints and others made jokes/remarks about big early bets in a .25/.50 game and how the game dried up, and I tried to tactfully note that $20 isnt near enough to make $1/1 playable. Don't know if there's anything I can do to fix this without scaring people off or seeming money-hungry. How do I aid their transition from tournaments to cash games?

I agree with @btbmason - your blinds are just way too high for your buyin for NLHE. $20 buyins at .25/.50 is only 40 big blinds, and not enough to play a solid cash game.

I was in the EXACT same situation as you about 2 years ago (.25/.50 with $20 buyins) when my cash game "grew up." It went from people hanging around, socializing, and drinking beers, to actually playing poker. And you just can't play good poker when you're only 40 blinds deep. By managing buyins and blinds, you're trying to control a game that by its very essence does not want to be controlled. So you must decide, do you want to keep it friendly? Or do you want people to play poker?

If you want to keep it friendly I would tell you to quit the cash and go back to tourney's with $20 buyins. Everyone's potential losses are then strictly limited, the loose players can keep shoving stacks for the fun of it, and the serious guys can keep reading them and stealing their chips.

On the other hand, if you want to play a real cash NLHE poker game then you need to do one of two things: A) Up the buyins to $100 max for .25/.50, or B) Keep the buyins at $20 and reduce the blinds to .05/.10

There will be some very real repercussions from this move... If you go to .05/.10 you will lose the players who want a more "serious" game with bigger buyins, and if you go to $100 max, you will lose players who do not want to risk that much money. BUT - in either case, you will at least have real poker taking place, and not some half-assed social hour with some kind of card game and chips being bounced around in the background.

My home game is now .25/.50 with $100 max buyins. The crew is different from where we started (we lost the players who just didn't want to gamble with that kind of money), but the action is solid, the poker is real, and everyone comes in knowing what to expect. We also attracted some new/different players who appreciate the game/stakes we play at. It's really a great crew, and great times socializing and sharing drinks/stories, but we're not trying to fake a card game for the sake of hurt feelings or hurt wallets. When you try to control poker that much.... well... it just ain't poker.

It may be time for your game to grow up.

 

[detroitdad]

My home game is now .25/.50 with $100 max buyins. The crew is different from where we started (we lost the players who just didn't want to gamble with that kind of money), but the action is solid, the poker is real, and everyone comes in knowing what to expect. It's a great crew, and great times socializing and sharing drinks/stories, but we're not trying to fake a card game for the sake of hurt feelings or hurt wallets. When you try to control poker that much.... well... it just ain't poker.

Exactly where my game is. I love it. We s tarted with .25/.50 40 max, then 60 max. IMO, the best poker being played is when we do 100 max. @Ellasdaddy , you've got some great advice in this thread. Good luck and let us know how it works out.

B

 

[inca911]

You can also run two different tables with different stakes. Eventually, that can either turn into two nights of poker, or the small stakes group will decideto either step up or stop playing.

 

[Mojo1312]

How many players attend your game. Have you tracked the number of re-buys? (if so, what is the number?)

 

[upNdown]

Exactly where my game is. I love it. We s tarted with .25/.50 40 max, then 60 max. IMO, the best poker being played is when we do 100 max. @Ellasdaddy , you've got some great advice in this thread. Good luck and let us know how it works out.

B

Yeah, no doubt it got better as the stacks got deeper, but I bet it wasn't horrible with the short stacks.
I think it's important to remember that every group is different. I think @Ellasdaddy has two problems - one with the structure and another one with the players.
My buddy runs a .25/.50 with $20 initial buy-ins that works fine. It's not ideal, but it's still decent poker. One of the reasons it works is that people go into it know they're gonna rebuy, sometimes at $40 or $50. Yeah, somebody's always rebuying after the first orbit or the first hand. But by the end of the night, there's probably an average of $60 per player on the table. The game plays fine. Again, not ideal, but definitely good enough, because the players aren't afraid to lose their $20 in a single hand, and not hell-bent on making it all back in a single hand either.
I guess what I'm saying is that the structure could be better, but it could work the way it is now, if the players figure it out. Maybe they will figure it out after a few more sessions. Or maybe you'll have to change the format. Or maybe both.

 

[detroitdad]

Yeah, no doubt it got better as the stacks got deeper, but I bet it wasn't horrible with the short stacks.
I think it's important to remember that every group is different. I think @Ellasdaddy has two problems - one with the structure and another one with the players.
My buddy runs a .25/.50 with $20 initial buy-ins that works fine. It's not ideal, but it's still decent poker. One of the reasons it works is that people go into it know they're gonna rebuy, sometimes at $40 or $50. Yeah, somebody's always rebuying after the first orbit or the first hand. But by the end of the night, there's probably an average of $60 per player on the table. The game plays fine. Again, not ideal, but definitely good enough, because the players aren't afraid to lose their $20 in a single hand, and not hell-bent on making it all back in a single hand either.
I guess what I'm saying is that the structure could be better, but it could work the way it is now, if the players figure it out. Maybe they will figure it out after a few more sessions. Or maybe you'll have to change the format. Or maybe both.

Your probably right. Its funny, whether the buy in is 60, or 100, we usually have close to the same amount of money on the table at the end of the night.

I have a couple of players that prefer the 60.00 buy in. I will occasionally lower it for them. It doesn't change anything lol.

 

[courage]

It's a natural tendency for players to want to gamble to get even at the end of a session, even though they've probably forgotten it's all one long lifetime session. These same players are unlikely to want to play spread limit (just a guess). I'd lower the blinds to .25/.25 and double the max buy-in to $40 since most are already rebuying.

 

[Trihonda]

I would add that my preference is what others have stated, to simply up the max BIs. Now, I still play with starting max at $60 for NLHE in most of my home games. We gradually get to $100 max by the end of the night, but starting with $60 is still very reasonable. Most casinos, with $1/$2 blinds cap BIs at $300, or 150bbs. At $.25/.50, a $100 BI is 200bbs, so anywhere from 60-100 you should be good. I prefer play at $100, but it's about the comfort level of your players. I'd suggest gradually increasing the max buy ins over time.

Start out by telling your regular crew that since there's a lot of rebuys happening, you're just going to up the max to $40, but still allow folks to buy in for $20 if they want. You might encourage a few of those low stakes guys to stick around, and hopefully grow with the game. Eventually those nits will either realize that playing with deeper stacks is better, or they'll cut and run. But increasing gradually will allow the game (and some of your players) to grow. After a while, once the comfort level is established, up max to $60.

There's also the option of jacking up the max buyins to $60 or $80 right away, but you'll certainly have an immediate exodus of those low level players. So you'll need to plan to recruit new people in advance.

 

[Psypher1000]

I have no clue how to fix this.

In addition to the discussion above - much of which I agree with - don't forget the "fun" factor. In theory, you're hosting poker with friends not just for money, but because both you and they enjoy it. Don't lose that. Think about what's fun for you & what most of them seem to enjoy, and try to adjust the game while maintaining the enjoyment for *most* people. You probably won't be able to please everyone, but you can still have an enjoyable game.

There's also the possibility of alternating the limits from session to session to accommodate various preferences. That's not always the best approach, but it works for some and is worth considering.

 

[Ellasdaddy]

Thank you for all the great advice. I'll try and answer the questions I've gotten thus far:

$20 isn't the max, it's the min! My players just don't bring, or want to play for, more cash.

The players are more familiar with tournaments but typically play in $50+ buy in tourneys. There just seems to be a stigma over buying $50 in chips and possibly getting felted and losing everything in a tournament for the same amount of money. I never experienced this feeling, so I don't know how to help it.

The last 3 family games have all had 8 players and seen fewer reloads, average was 3 total, but still only at $20 apiece. Those games were over inside of 3 hours, to my disappointment. Friendly games have been slightly better, as they average 9 players and 5 total reloads at $40 apiece.

Having a good time always takes priority, but playing real poker is priority 1a.

My immediate instinct after Saturday night's game was to introduce LHE to the group(s) and up the min buy to $40. I had another thought, about maybe beginning the night with a mini turbo shootout, like for $10 or so, winner take all, and see if that warms people up or gives someone an extra bit of cash to play with and help loosen up their purse strings a bit. Just something to either relax them about putting in more cash or generate more degeneracy, I guess.

 

[Ellasdaddy]

Yes, my game appears to be growing up much, much faster than I anticipated but without the requisite cash and mindset to support it. I'll likely have to handle these folks with kid gloves thru a slow evolution. Another night or 2 like the last few and I may just have to up the minimum BI or introduce LHE immediately and accept what comes.

Playing limit or spreading limits appeals to me. Maybe handing everyone a rack of chips to start will induce bigger BIs on its own?

 

[justsomedude]

Yes, my game appears to be growing up much, much faster than I anticipated but without the requisite cash and mindset to support it. I'll likely have to handle these folks with kid gloves thru a slow evolution. Another night or 2 like the last few and I may just have to up the minimum BI or introduce LHE immediately and accept what comes.

Playing limit or spreading limits appeals to me. Maybe handing everyone a rack of chips to start will induce bigger BIs on its own?

I'm not sure it's handling folks with "kids gloves" so much as it is just being honest with your approach to hosting. Seriously - I went through these exact same growing pains - and it took a good 4-6 months of trying different things for the game to finally settle in. We tried limit, spread limit, and everything that is being suggested here. And they are all great ideas... just let everyone know what you're thinking, and why you're changing things up. Keep it an open conversation.

I agree that fun is a big priority, but just keep in mind --- you're never going to make everybody happy all the time --- and trying to do so may end up damaging your game more than helping it. As I stated, some folks may bail when you settle in on a new system, but you may gain new players as well.

Not to beat a dead horse, but just be honest and open with your goals, and why you're changing things up. Your players who will appreciate the changes will tell you, and those who do not like the changes will let you know too, and I doubt it will have any impact on your friendship with those guys - they may just not play your games anymore.

FWIW - I now run an alternating setup of cash and tourney nights, and it can attract very different sets of players, although there is a lot of overlap as well. This gives folks an opportunity to choose between $100 buyin games, or $40 tourney nights. Just something else to consider adding to your hosting arsenal.

 

[Mojo1312]

Based on my experience, cash players make the transition to tournament poker easier than those who switch over to cash. Adjusting the blinds will not fix the problem. Players are going to bet whatever they feel is necessary to accomplish their ends, as you have already noted. I don't see much promise in the "family game," so I would focus on growing your "friendly" cash game by increasing the min buy-in to $40.

What you are experiencing is familiar to me. I played in a $20 cash game for years. Originally, the blinds were set at .25/.50, then increased to .50/$1, which really changed the dynamics of the game when a few aggro players realized they could bully some of the other players with big pre-flop bets. This did not last long, once other players decided they weren't going to be pushed off of their hands. I tried to get the host to increase the size of the buy-in to no avail.

To shorten the story, I started my own weekly home game with $40 to $60 buy-in, or half of the big stack, with .25/.50 blinds. The jump in stakes mattered, because everyone had more skin in the game. The game became so robust at the end of 15 months that I was actually considering increasing the buy-in amount to $60 to $100. ($100 re-buys were not uncommon.)

Once you get a stable, healthy cash game going, you can host an occasional poker tournament for the other players who prefer that format. In all likelihood, your cash players will sit in on that game as well.

P.S. Increasing the buy-ins will change your players mindset. IMO, you should make this change right away.

GL.

 

[Ellasdaddy]

Thanks all. I have a lot to mull over. I wanna be the best host I can be, but I need to be happy most of all. In the end, hosting competitive and safe poker games with solid action during long nights is what makes me happy.

Also, possibly of note here because you guys know exactly where I'm coming from, I tend to win much of the time. I've actually contemplated mucking winning hands in order to keep people playing and interested... terrible idea, I know. I just hate to the optics of organizing and hosting games, then being the night's big winner. Sometimes, I've turned over monster hands and been relieved to have gotten beat by a bigger monster.

 

[Kain8]

Thanks all. I have a lot to mull over. I wanna be the best host I can be, but I need to be happy most of all. In the end, hosting competitive and safe poker games with solid action during long nights is what makes me happy.

Also, possibly of note here because you guys know exactly where I'm coming from, I tend to win much of the time. I've actually contemplated mucking winning hands in order to keep people playing and interested... terrible idea, I know. I just hate to the optics of organizing and hosting games, then being the night's big winner. Sometimes, I've turned over monster hands and been relieved to have gotten beat by a bigger monster.

You're relieved when you lose in a cooler spot?

If you're super concerned with how people will feel if you're winning and hosting, then those "players" you can do without. Yes you're hosting, but when the cards are out, you're just another player. You are entitled to the pot and everyone's stacks just as much as any other player.

 

[RowdyRawhide]

Thanks all. I have a lot to mull over. I wanna be the best host I can be, but I need to be happy most of all. In the end, hosting competitive and safe poker games with solid action during long nights is what makes me happy.

Also, possibly of note here because you guys know exactly where I'm coming from, I tend to win much of the time. I've actually contemplated mucking winning hands in order to keep people playing and interested... terrible idea, I know. I just hate to the optics of organizing and hosting games, then being the night's big winner. Sometimes, I've turned over monster hands and been relieved to have gotten beat by a bigger monster.

Are YOU buying in fro more than $20

out of curiosity

 

[Ellasdaddy]

Are YOU buying in fro more than $20

out of curiosity

Yeah, I try to set the tone and typically sit with $100. If nobody even puts down $40 to start, I may go with $60 or $80. Doesn't help much, as I've gotten misguided comments about how I'm just trying to be the table bully and win all the money... Maybe I should just let those people go away.

Its also the only way I ever get to feel or see a $25 chip on my table. I never have to change them out

 

[Ellasdaddy]

You're relieved when you lose in a cooler spot?

If you're super concerned with how people will feel if you're winning and hosting, then those "players" you can do without. Yes you're hosting, but when the cards are out, you're just another player. You are entitled to the pot and everyone's stacks just as much as any other player.

As a struggling poker host AND Jets fan, this post cut deep...

 

[Trihonda]

Yeah, I try to set the tone and typically sit with $100. If nobody even puts down $40 to start, I may go with $60 or $80. Doesn't help much, as I've gotten misguided comments about how I'm just trying to be the table bully and win all the money... Maybe I should just let those people go away.

Its also the only way I ever get to feel or see a $25 chip on my table. I never have to change them out

Given that people can sit down with $100, and some are choosing to sort buy for twenty.. and then complain when they get bullied or felted, I don't think your issue is structure, its players. You should just recruit more players who are at or near similar skill levels. Problem solved.

 

[T_Chan]

If it were me, I'd impose min and max buys ins based on the stakes you're playing and stick to it. 50bb min and 200bb max or something like that. So you can give your players the choice. If they want to buy in for $20, you will lower the blinds. If they want to change the blinds then the min & max change accordingly.

Secondly, I would lead by example. It sounds like you're doing it already, but I would (and I almost always do) buy in for the max. If and when you get comments from the players about how much you're buying in for, you can explain it to them simply that it's a better game when you are deeper stacked.

"If Joe Blow raises the typical $3 preflop, I re-raise to $8-10, then it's pretty much all in if I only buy in for $20. I don't want to put myself in a situation where any 3 bet turns into an all in." Or something along those lines. Hopefully they see the light and follow suit.

 

[detroitdad]

Email them all links to the Strat threads on this site

 

[RowdyRawhide]

Yeah, I try to set the tone and typically sit with $100. If nobody even puts down $40 to start, I may go with $60 or $80. Doesn't help much, as I've gotten misguided comments about how I'm just trying to be the table bully and win all the money... Maybe I should just let those people go away.

Its also the only way I ever get to feel or see a $25 chip on my table. I never have to change them out

It sounds like your players may still be amateurish in their understanding of the game. If you are happy with the players you have, or are like me and have a small player pool to choose from, you could introduce LHE either fixed or spread until players have a better understanding of how to play their hands. It allows them to limit their losses in one hand (essentially what they are doing now with min buy ins), then if most are in agreement you can go back to NLHE after awhile but with a higher min buy in. If you want new players that play more like you, then by all means raise the stakes and get new players

another curious thought.....are your tourneys shove fests as well or do they play differently

 

[RowdyRawhide]

Not to thread jack but

do you guys really see a reduction in action pre and post flop at lower blinds levels with the same players. I don't see what stops large pre and post flop raises in NLHE, with the same players at 05/.10 or .25.50. I mean look at @Chicken Rob 's .05/.10 game with thousands of dollars on the table

just curious, we typically only play .25/.25 when we get to play NL, which isn't as often as i would like

 

[krafticus]

Not to thread jack but

do you guys really see a reduction in action pre and post flop at lower blinds levels with the same players. I don't see what stops large pre and post flop raises in NLHE, with the same players at 05/.10 or .25.50. I mean look at @Chicken Rob 's .05/.10 game with thousands of dollars on the table

just curious, we typically only play .25/.25 when we get to play NL, which isn't as often as i would like

not really from my case. last time we played $.10/$.25 at @MikesDad game, we were still seeing $3 and $4 raises preflop for HoldEm games.