Is it problematic to mix players from two different game sizes? (1 Viewer)

[Freeroll]

I’m having a game tomorrow night and, for the first time, a few of the players are coming out to play in my $0.25/$0.50 game, that usually play in a much bigger game ($1/$2/$5 usually).

I am excited they are finally coming out to play at my place. However, I was wondering if anyone has any experienced downsides to such a thing happening.

 

[tabletalker7]

I’m having a game tomorrow night and, for the first time, a few of the players are coming out to play in my $0.25/$0.50 game, that usually play in a much bigger game ($1/$2/$5 usually).

I am excited they are finally coming out to play at my place. However, I was wondering if anyone has any experienced downsides to such a thing happening.

Yes! The players from the bigger game tend to bet bigger because they are used to more on the table. This in turn prices out the lower level players.

 

[mashoo]

Depending on the levels of your .25/.50 players, the 1/2/5 guys are going to play more hands, probably try to straddle more and bump the game up to what they're used to.

If you got new players, I tell the experienced guys no straddling and not necessarily soft play, but no need to go after every pot/exploit/EV spot. Gotta let some others eat

 

[OfficerLovejoy]

If you got new players, I tell the experienced guys no straddling and not necessarily soft play, but no need to go after every pot/exploit/EV spot. Gotta let some others eat

Not allowing straddles sure is fine, but I wouldn't wanna play in a game where I'm forced to "not go after every pot or EV spot".
I'd rather teach your low limit players how to exploit a maniac than tell the latter that they cannot play the way they want in your game.

 

[Freeroll]

Most of the players at my $0.25/$0.50 game are what I would call very adequate to somewhat advanced players (for 0.25/0.50 at least). I have had several people comment after their first time playing at my house that it was the highest level of play theyd ever played in

 

[tabletalker7]

Most of the players at my $0.25/$0.50 game are what I would call very adequate to somewhat advanced players (for 0.25/0.50 at least). I have had several people comment after their first time playing at my house that it was the highest level of play theyd ever played in

It isn't a matter of play ability as much as depth of wallet. Hum ....... You know, tournament play would eliminate the advantage of deeper wallets.

 

[Freeroll]

It isn't a matter of play ability as much as depth of wallet. Hum ....... You know, tournament play would eliminate the advantage of deeper wallets.

Yea, that’s true, and I plan on having a tournament in the near future, but I much prefer cash games (and so do most of my players) for our regular games

 

[Goldfish]

I would say that the higher stakes players have a distinct advantage over the lower stakes players. The higher guys are going to be able to get away with bluffs more and bet the lower guys out of their draws more. The lower guys may be put out of their comfort zone in a lot of spots. But, there was the time where I went to a $100 buy in cash holdem game and rebought 22 times in 40 mins. Those guys loved me ……… so there is always that.

 

[Moxie Mike]

I am excited they are finally coming out to play at my place. However, I was wondering if anyone has any experienced downsides to such a thing happening.

I've been that guy who's invite to low stakes games didn't go well. After cleaning up with a perfectly suited LAG strategy against a group of people who barely understood hand rankings, I wasn't invited back.

I should have known I was in the wrong environment when a minor procedural argument (nothing heated) was abruptly ended when the host informed the other party 'you should listen to Mike. He plays in casinos.' lol

Friendships weren't damaged or anything like that, but I got the 'you're too good for us' speech on more than one occasion.

 

[Lilsissy]

I think if they have the same skill level it shouldn’t be an issue. You may want to let the players that are use to playing .25 /.50 that a few high stake players are coming, to adjust their game accordingly. Maybe?

 

[Lilsissy]

I think if they have the same skill level it shouldn’t be an issue. You may want to let the players that are use to playing .25 /.50 that a few high stake players are coming, to adjust their game accordingly. Maybe?

Higher stake players

 

[Freeroll]

I think if they have the same skill level it shouldn’t be an issue. You may want to let the players that are use to playing .25 /.50 that a few high stake players are coming, to adjust their game accordingly. Maybe?

Good advice. I told the only 2 regulars that are coming. The rest can fend for themselves.

 

[LeLe]

I would say that the higher stakes players have a distinct advantage over the lower stakes players. The higher guys are going to be able to get away with bluffs more and bet the lower guys out of their draws more. The lower guys may be put out of their comfort zone in a lot of spots. But, there was the time where I went to a $100 buy in cash holdem game and rebought 22 times in 40 mins. Those guys loved me ……… so there is always that.

Hence your handler is indeed GOLDFISH

 

[Highli99]

Big players are always going to play lower sometimes. Is good practice for moving up in stakes if you are a lower stake player. Let them play!

 

[JustinInMN]

I would say that the higher stakes players have a distinct advantage over the lower stakes players. The higher guys are going to be able to get away with bluffs more and bet the lower guys out of their draws more. The lower guys may be put out of their comfort zone in a lot of spots. But, there was the time where I went to a $100 buy in cash holdem game and rebought 22 times in 40 mins. Those guys loved me ……… so there is always that.

As long as you have a table cap, it should level off.

So @Freeroll is there a cap on the amount of buy ins? I would suggest a max of $60-$100 for this stake, but figure out, what's the number that your lower stake players are comfortable doing 3 times in a night. (And I am not suggesting you limit the number of times players buy in, but estimate the point at which players will limit themselves. If they reach that point too quickly, the game will be in danger of an early break.) That pretty much puts everyone on the same playing field as far as wallet depth goes.

If your game has no cap on buy-ins then yes, the deeper wallets will have an advantage for sure.

 

[Freeroll]

As long as you have a table cap, it should level off.

So @Freeroll is there a cap on the amount of buy ins? I would suggest a max of $60-$100 for this stake, but figure out, what's the number that your lower stake players are comfortable doing 3 times in a night. (And I am not suggesting you limit the number of times players buy in, but estimate the point at which players will limit themselves. If they reach that point too quickly, the game will be in danger of an early break.) That pretty much puts everyone on the same playing field as far as wallet depth goes.

If your game has no cap on buy-ins then yes, the deeper wallets will have an advantage for sure.

Yes, I have always capped the buy ins at $60. A few of the players have asked me to make it $100, but I have always declined. $100 would be great for us regulars, but I’m scared that large of a buy in could scare away some new players.

 

[trigs]

Is it really true that high rollers will just clean up at lower stakes simply because they have more money to lose? Is this really the case? If yes, why don't more high rollers just move down a couple levels and crush everything?

I think it's more along the lines that lower stake players like to play a certain way, and if the other players in the game play differently, it upsets them. Personally, I would rather sit at a table where multiple players are splashing chips into pots like the money doesn't matter at all than a nit fest where no one raises and preflop min raises take down every pot.

I mean, are these high rollers going to start shoving all in pre every hand because they just don't give a f***, or are they going to play basically LAG poker and your lower stake players just can't combat that strategy? The former would obviously be annoying, but still easily exploitable, and the latter is just something all poker players should learn to deal with anyway.

 

[MrCatPants]

My experience has been that if the wallets are too deep, the higher stakes players will try to turn the lower stakes game into the game they want to play as others have described. 5-10x standard opens, straddles, buying in as deep as possible. Would recommend you talk with them about "hey, this is how this .25/.50 game runs" in terms of buy-ins etc. Otherwise, there's a chance they could come in and alienate your low stakes players.

(*I have had this happen, and it definitely can be a problem. Had to tell a player to stop it and only play the higher stakes game if that's what they want - that this game was a different audience.)

 

[JustinInMN]

Is it really true that high rollers will just clean up at lower stakes simply because they have more money to lose? Is this really the case? If yes, why don't more high rollers just move down a couple levels and crush everything?

I don't think it's true unless it is a "no-cap" sort of game. Then the big pockets have the ability to win the biggest pots. A buy-in cap mostly levels the playing field.

My experience has been that if the wallets are too deep, the higher stakes players will try to turn the lower stakes game into the game they want to play as others have described. 5-10x standard opens, straddles, buying in as deep as possible. Would recommend you talk with them about "hey, this is how this .25/.50 game runs" in terms of buy-ins etc. Otherwise, there's a chance they could come in and alienate your low stakes players.

Which is why it's important to have a buy-in cap and stick to it, and do not let the high stakes players try and twist the game. They knew what they were going in for when whey agreed to play.

Yes, I have always capped the buy ins at $60. A few of the players have asked me to make it $100, but I have always declined. $100 would be great for us regulars, but I’m scared that large of a buy in could scare away some new players.

Awesome, if you stick to this, there should be no problem. Personally for $100 buy-in I'd rather play 0.50-1, but I have always thought deep stack is a bit overrated.

 

[Highli99]

My experience has been that if the wallets are too deep, the higher stakes players will try to turn the lower stakes game into the game they want to play as others have described. 5-10x standard opens, straddles, buying in as deep as possible.

I get capping buy-ins for the stakes but if open amounts are bothering people perhaps they have forgotten the game is called no limit hold em. Limit is a great game and fun in it's own right although I prefer circus games with that structure.

 

[MrCatPants]

I get capping buy-ins for the stakes but if open amounts are bothering people perhaps they have forgotten the game is called no limit hold em. Limit is a great game and fun in it's own right although I prefer circus games with that structure.

Alot of people want to play NLHE - just not be in a situation that if they amass a few hundred in chips, others will buy up and they could be faced with a bet equivalent to their monthly discretionary spending. I think the social fish bowls really do need to be protected from sharks and big gamblers - I've seen a couple long standing games get broken because of this very situation.

 

[Highli99]

Alot of people want to play NLHE - just not be in a situation that if they amass a few hundred in chips, others will buy up and they could be faced with a bet equivalent to their monthly discretionary spending. I think the social fish bowls really do need to be protected from sharks and big gamblers - I've seen a couple long standing games get broken because of this very situation.

I'm with you on game curation and buy in caps. I am only questioning the raise amounts as a basis of protest. That's just an easily countered strategy decision within the rules of the game.

 

[MrCatPants]

I'm with you on game curation and buy in caps. I am only questioning the raise amounts as a basis of protest. That's just an easily countered strategy decision within the rules of the game.

I hear you. It's what actually caused me the most noise though. I had people opening to $5 where in that game that would have been an intimidating turn bet generally at the time. Had to cool a lot of people down as it was mainly a social game.

 

[JustinInMN]

I hear you. It's what actually caused me the most noise though. I had people opening to $5 where in that game that would have been an intimidating turn bet generally at the time. Had to cool a lot of people down as it was mainly a social game.

I'm with you on game curation and buy in caps. I am only questioning the raise amounts as a basis of protest. That's just an easily countered strategy decision within the rules of the game.

While I agree with @Highli99 , I do understand @MrCatPants point also that players that don't understand how to change strategy won't. I have heard of a middle-ground that might work here if needed. Do pot-limit pre and no-limit after the flop. This keeps the open-sizing in check (max open starts at 4x assuming no limpers and the SB is calculated as complete in PL as is common).

I wouldn't do that unless it's necessary, but thought I would throw it out there.

 

[MrCatPants]

While I agree with @Highli99 , I do understand @MrCatPants point also that players that don't understand how to change strategy won't. I have heard of a middle-ground that might work here if needed. Do pot-limit pre and no-limit after the flop. This keeps the open-sizing in check (max open starts at 4x assuming no limpers and the SB is calculated as complete in PL as is common).

I wouldn't do that unless it's necessary, but thought I would throw it out there.

It's more that they just don't want to - people who play for fun, and don't want to take significant gambling risks. Competent fishies without a ton of disposable income.

 

[JustinInMN]

It's more that they just don't want to - people who play for fun, and don't want to take significant gambling risks. Competent fishies without a ton of disposable income.

I mean, it's a fair point that large opening raise sizes lead to high variance, but @Highli99 is still right, that strategy is pretty easily defeated.

The strategy is fold way more to oversized preflop raises until they get sick of getting no action, and make much bigger 3 bets when you decide to play back. But again, the second part is what causes much higher variance that may make the players @MrCatPants describes uncomfortable. But in that case the PL preflop idea would probably work.

 

[Old State]

I just invited a higher stakes player to my .50/1 game a few weeks ago. It was fine.
I used to almost exclusively play $1/2NL home games until a few years ago as I wanted to play far more frequently than that group got together. Stakes have never dictated my play…the game dictates that.

I have in the past have had some loose aggressive $1/2 players at my lower stakes games. They often have a losing session because they play the stakes rather than the game…usually calling too frequently and over betting.

 

[Coyote]

Yes, it is problematic.
Capping the max per player per session is a good thing, but still...

 

[Legend5555]

This really just depends on the players. In the past I played as high as 2/5 semi regularly, with 1/2 being my main game. But I always played all stakes basically the same. I didn't just gamble it up at low stakes home games because it was low stakes. I might play slightly looser, but my betting sizes always stayed in line with the game size.

Now some recreational higher stakes players that are more in it for the gamble? Yeah, they could have a "negative" effect on the game. But even that is relative. Some players might like the fact that they are playing dumb because the money doesn't matter.

The only real thing to say here is that if your normal low stakes crowd doesn't like it, then you should of course not invite the higher stakes gamblers. Though I'd never say that there is a clear answer as to whether inviting higher stakes players to a lower stakes game is good or bad.

 

[SteveEH]

This really just depends on the players. In the past I played as high as 2/5 semi regularly, with 1/2 being my main game. But I always played all stakes basically the same. I didn't just gamble it up at low stakes home games because it was low stakes. I might play slightly looser, but my betting sizes always stayed in line with the game size.

Now some recreational higher stakes players that are more in it for the gamble? Yeah, they could have a "negative" effect on the game. But even that is relative. Some players might like the fact that they are playing dumb because the money doesn't matter.

I'm the same @Legend5555 and "the gamblers" are why I'm very particular about who I invite as they're going to either make the game break early or make my regs uncomfortable and stop coming.

For a while I used rules like:

- No open raising more than 3 BBs
- Pot limit pre flop, no limit post.
- If you only want to gamble 100bbs for the night, you can only buy in for 50 at a time to reduce the probability of busting out and breaking the game.

Then there's our one friend (we've known since elementary school) who's a true degen and still wants to build big pots and put people in uncomfortable spots.

Now we just play limit mixed games (the degen still asks to straddle) which is tough when recruiting new players because "it's not real poker."