Cash Game Interesting Problem (1 Viewer)

We do $40 for 0.25/0.50. Biggest issue was folk buying in initially a lot higher. That is easily fixed but after the initial we typically let folks buy in at a higher amount if they want. I should say the game doesn't feel like a 0.25/0.50 so it seems to me that our group may bump it up to a new level in the future.
 
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

Tourneys play out slowly and thoughtfully. Again, there just seems to be a stigma of tourneys being a huge value because players can sit around and nit it up for hours. I guess because they're so amateurish they figure playing a tourney is a way to cap their losses and maximize their time.
 
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

We play mostly PL games. When we kicked the stakes up to 1/2, the game got much tighter. Our buyins are $125 or half biggest stack in .25/.50. We play deep. I've lost over 10 buyins in a single session. Others have lost much more than that.

We have had .05/.10 games too. Big winner went +$900. Super deep, but much smaller than our .25/.50 game.

Our 1/1 uncapped game during meetups has gotten stupid big.

So we definitely see differences in blind/buyins levels. They all play super deep, and capping buy ins and playing pot limit slows it down a little.
 
Struggled with the similar problem when I first started hosting a few years ago. Had the same $20 buyin and made it 10c/0.20c which is essentially a fractional $1/2 game that virtually everybody was familiar with. Some players loved the $20 buyin while others would make raises to way higher amounts that effectively made the next bet a shove. I played around with the blinds etc but in the end the only real solution was to have two separate games. A $20 10c/20c "social/beginner" game and a $60 50c/50c or $100 $1/1 game. Needless to say the $1/1 went big but the players that came to that one were more than ok with it. To them playing micro-stakes is only marginally better than 'play money" poker. I realized you simply can't force the math. Money has to matter in both directions... low enough to not be a complete nit but high enough that you play real poker.
 
I think you've gotten some good ideas. I share this just to give perspective. I had little idea what real poker was until I met a pro player in 1981 who taught me how poker really worked and how to learn to improve. He shared 3 rules about buy-ins that have stuck with me.

Rule 1 In a limit game, the minimum he'd buy in for was 40x the ante (I'd never heard of blinds back then and I don't remember him bringing them up, but maybe he did), but he preferred at least 60x. Translate that into $.25/.50 with say a $1 limit, and you are talking $60 min.

Rule 2 In a no limit game, his minimum was 200x, and he preferred 300x. Translate that into $.25/.50, and you are talking $150 min. Double that for $.50/1 to $300. To me a $20 buy-in is no more than a $.05/.10 game. If you have players willing to put way more up than I'm willing to, I'm just going to concede that's the wrong game for me and not play.

He explained that anything less limited your ability to really play and profit, which was to him the only reason to play. He didn't believe in gambling and once he explained what that meant, I got he wasn't going to take risks where the odds were stacked against him.

Rule 3 Whatever he was told was the max buy-in, he'd bring at least 2x, and usually 3x that amount (for limit or no-limit). He shared a story of flying to a game after being told the max buy was $10K. He took $30K. When he sat down, 2 players were allowed to buy in for $50K. Instead of playing, he left. It may have been because he was misled, or the rules were changed, but I always thought it was because he didn't want to play against 2 chip stacks in NL that started bigger than he could possibly match. I didn't understand this beyond he saw it as a severe disadvantage against good players. He wanted to at least be able to be competitive against the players. If I could talk to him now, I'd know enough more to clarify this point; maybe I misunderstood the real issue he had.

Most of the cash games I hear about around here are so far under these standards, I won't even play in them.

As for what casinos allow, be careful. Casinos do things that make the casino money, not what makes a good game or smart money management for players. As long as they can get people in, they will do what is in their own best interest. They will only adjust when it's not profitable for them. That's not to say that we should ignore what casinos do. Just be aware their goals start with them and not the players.

Home poker is totally different. It's all about the players. I don't want to duplicate what casinos do. I want a game that is more attractive to players than a casino game.

In the early '80s, I played in a game where we had 4 regulars, and 3 semi-regulars. We could usually get 5 a night. One guy was a consistent loser and considered dropping out of the game. To save the game, which was for me both fun a profitable but not big money, I gave him a couple of tips, and twice folded the winning hand to him to keep him in the game. It cost me a little money those nights, but it kept him in the game for several more months. When he dropped out due to losses, it seriously affected our game. We lost a regular, but about that time picked up another semi-regular. After that we averaged 4 players. I made a little less, but won slightly more often. If I could have, I'd have given more some additional pots to keep him in the game since 5 players was more profitable than 4 players. If you see poker as one lifetime session, you plan strategically and sometimes make a short-term sacrifice. That is playing to win, but it's weird if you think of each session on its own. Extracting the maximum amount from a game can destroy it. Sometimes there is a delicate balance.
 
Last edited:
My group has some poker players mixed with Dads that just want a night out to drink with the boys. We alternate between tournaments and cash games. $20 buy in for both. On cash nights we start with 90 minutes of spread limit .25/.25 $2 max bet/raise. Maximum 1 bet and 3 raises each betting round. That sets the tone for when we switch to no limit. There are still some $40-$60 pots through the night but the dads out for a good time get a couple hours of play with their $20 and the poker players stay for 6-7 hours. It also creates some excitement when we are counting down to no limit.
 

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