Cash Game I've hosted 100+ live games with friends. Here are our house rules. Thoughts? (2 Viewers)

[ArielVer18]

I am stealing this rule for my book. I am pro multiple runs because I do believe the less players get felted, the longer the games tend to go. Players outside of any side pots should not get to veto multiple runs.

I don't understand why it needs to be a rule though. For example, let's say Alex, Bobby, and Charlie are all-in with Charlie having the least amount of chips. Charlie only wants to run it once, but Alex and Bobby wants to run it twice. Why can't they just run it twice for the side pot and have the second board be irrelevant for the main pot? Would the rule force Charlie to participate in the second board when he doesn't want to run it twice?

 

[JustinInMN]

Appreciate your thoughts!

I have a Majestic set, which is fairly common. But I have a webcam recording and haven't really heard of any games adjacent to mine experiencing this issue, so I haven't been motivated to find replacements.

If I were to get custom chips, I'd probably just go all-out and get some CPCs.

That's good, I hope you do something at some point. It's a pet peeve of mine (and many others on here) to be able to afford to play/host a regular game that will get thousands in the bank every night, but stick with stock chips.

I know, I am sorry if that seems like snobbery in a forum that lends itself to snobbery. But we understand the value and want others to understand as well.

I know it sounds good to have a camera, but if something happens are you going to watch the footage for 4-6 hours or whatever observing each player in hopes of finding something?

Fwiw I have a camera on my front door, caught someone walking into my garage after being accidentally left open all night and took $60-something that was in one of our vehicles.

Gave the video to the cops, nothing happened. (Not that I expected it to.)

We spent $50 on a smart opener after that and it will automatically close the garage if left open every evening. But obviously, it would have been smarter to do that before the $60 loss.

 

[JustinInMN]

I don't understand why it needs to be a rule though. For example, let's say Alex, Bobby, and Charlie are all-in with Charlie having the least amount of chips. Charlie only wants to run it once, but Alex and Bobby wants to run it twice. Why can't they just run it twice for the side pot and have the second board be irrelevant for the main pot? Would the rule force Charlie to participate in the second board when he doesn't want to run it twice?

I think adding that wording as a clarification accomplishes what your are describing.

I think the idea that all players must agree might lead to a different interpretation that if anyone says "one-time" there are no multiple boards. Adding the wording spells out how to accomplish what you are saying. If someone outside of a side pot objects to a multiple run, then the multiple run applies to the side pot.

 

[Nine_high]

I run cash only. Players can Venmo each other or me for cash, hit the ATM, whatever. But chips only come out if cash goes in.

Custom chips and carefully curating your player pool.

This is it. I bought fully custom because I wanted something very specific and unique. Security is a very nice benefit that helped me justify the cost.

I'm also selective with invites. No shady people. I only let people in that I have personally met and vetted.

I'm sure this will get a lot of noise on here, but, Ive played in games, off and on, for 30 years and there's one thing that I question. I'll start by going ahead and drawing the lines for which everyone can choose sides, here goes: I'm not a fan of all the side bets, prop bets, reruns, straddles, etc. My observation is that these guys are just gambling junkies, and, I just want to play poker. If the thrill for you is just the rush of any kind of bet, go drop coins in a slot machine.

I realize this is somewhat off topic, but, reading through this thread there was discussion of rules for said betting. For those of us that really enjoy the game of poker, many of these betting antics take away from an otherwise enjoyable session of playing poker.

Am I way off base here? Am I alone? Anyone else feel the same, or, am I in the middle of a bunch of gambling junkies and need an escort to my car? What say you??

I don't have any official prop bets. But I allow players to play side bets if they want. Run it twice fine as long as everyone involved agrees. As long as it doesn't interfere with unwilling participants it's pretty much fair game.

I wouldn't be opposed to a HH or bad beat jackpot type of thing... however I'm too lazy to mess with raking and all that

 

[edwardstarcraft]

I think my rules actually don't have that much "gambly" stuff in there. If people want to straddle, that's fine and up to them. You could argue that running it twice is less gambly than running it once -- and indeed I usually see tighter players opt to run it twice while more gambly players running it once to have a chance to scoop a large pot.

I personally don't like the 7-2 rule (so don't implement it) because it changes action over the course of a normal hand, but I think a bomb pots rule doesn't really change action (except for the bomb pot itself). The only requirement is that a bomb pot triggered by a monotone flop is a mandatory ante -- but if you don't want to play you can fold your cards.

The reasoning for the mandatory ante is similar to the 7-2 rule. Even if you don't personally like to bluff with 7-2, you usually cannot opt out of paying the 7-2 bounty since other people at the table have fun bluffing with 7-2 and you probably benefit from the looser action.

 

[JustinInMN]

You could argue that running it twice is less gambly than running it once -- and indeed I usually see tighter players opt to run it twice while more gambly players running it once to have a chance to scoop a large pot.

Absolutely right. Multiple runs has more or less replaced and older practice of insurance side bets.

https://www.pokernews.com/pokerterms/insurance.htm

 

[glynn]

I don't understand why it needs to be a rule though. For example, let's say Alex, Bobby, and Charlie are all-in with Charlie having the least amount of chips. Charlie only wants to run it once, but Alex and Bobby wants to run it twice. Why can't they just run it twice for the side pot and have the second board be irrelevant for the main pot? Would the rule force Charlie to participate in the second board when he doesn't want to run it twice?

The argument is that Alex and Bobby's persistence in the hand can be influenced by their understanding that they will be able to run it twice if it comes to that, which if true, disadvantages Charlie whose equity is decreased for the first runout.

This is not necessarily my argument, just one that is made by opponents of the ritual. Though I would seriously consider Charlie's interest if it were my game.

 

[Jimulacrum]

The argument is that Alex and Bobby's persistence in the hand can be influenced by their understanding that they will be able to run it twice if it comes to that, which if true, disadvantages Charlie whose equity is decreased for the first runout.

This is not necessarily my argument, just one that is made by opponents of the ritual. Though I would seriously consider Charlie's interest if it were my game.

This objection to RIT's influence on the play of the hand is also true, but there's a better objection that's seldom mentioned.

As n grows larger, running it n times brings you closer and closer to the Phil Hellmuth version of poker, where the best hand always holds up—or rather, the true equity of the hands is precisely realized. Run it infinite times (i.e., an exhaustive simulator), and if you're 80% when the money goes in, you get 80% of the pot.

Of course, running it twice only gets you one step in that direction, but that is the direction of its influence on the variability of outcomes.

This is obviously terrible for recreational players, whose wins tend to be chance-driven rather than skill-driven. It's much better for the longevity of a game to let the chips fall where they may, than to rob recreational players of any of the variability that serves them up those occasional wins.

 

[JustinInMN]

This is obviously terrible for recreational players, whose wins tend to be chance-driven rather than skill-driven.

Well that's the irony isn't it. By this measuring stick, any play at all is "terrible" for players that are -EV, yet it takes -EV players to keep the poker economy moving.

From a home game standpoint, I think much shorter term. RIT often prevents bust-outs which prolongs games. (And yes, I think limit play is better, but there are just 10x as many NLHE players as there are for any other form. NLHE games are far easier to put together.)

 

[Jimulacrum]

Well that's the irony isn't it. By this measuring stick, any play at all is "terrible" for players that are -EV, yet it takes -EV players to keep the poker economy moving.

From a home game standpoint, I think much shorter term. RIT often prevents bust-outs which prolongs games. (And yes, I think limit play is better, but there are just 10x as many NLHE players as there are for any other form. NLHE games are far easier to put together.)

Your game should cater in every way possible to the EV– players, within the tolerance limits of your EV+ players (which should be quite loose if they know what's good for them). Recruiting winning players and getting them to show up consistently is pretty easy. It's everyone else that needs encouragement.

Long games are usually worse than short games for this purpose, particularly with a NL/PL betting structure.

 

[AuburnSeth]

Feel free to adopt under the Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0

Logistics

Buying In
You may buy in up to the table max for any hand before cards are dealt. Where the table max is a “match stack” game, the organizer will approximate the buy cap to the best of their ability.

The organizer keeps track of buy-ins using Regroup Poker Tools (iOS, Android). You will get a notification after every buy confirming your buy amount. If you do not get a notification, or it is incorrect, it is your responsibility to notify the host immediately.

When you cash out, you will get a notification with your net win / loss.

Trust
This is a game between friends, so we trust everyone to pay each other after the game ends. If you are new to the game, we may ask you to directly settle with the organizer or another player on the day of the game. In other cases, we may ask the person who invited you to vouch for you.

If you are a player who has concerns about another player, please bring it up privately with the organizer.

Payments
The organizer will send a message telling the winners who to request. The players may decide how to settle, but by default we use Venmo. The person who won money should send a Venmo request to ensure that no typos or other mistakes were made. Please do not include anything gambling-related as the message, as sometimes Venmo will get trigger-happy with banning gambling related payments.

We expect payments to be made within 3 days. If someone is unable to pay within 3 days, we expect you to privately notify the organizer. This is so that the group can (1) enforce payment if necessary and (2) prevent the person from attending future games, and (3) decide how to take the loss if stolen from. If you decide to pay each other later because you are friends or for any other reason, you implicitly take personal ownership of the debt and can no longer hold the group responsible for enforcing payment.

If you do not have Venmo or have run above Venmo limits, popular methods of payment are Square Cash, Messenger Pay, PayPal, Zelle, Google Pay, and Apple Pay. You may also bring cash to a game and pay the organizer directly.

Errors or Theft
While the organizer will do their best to ensure that there are no errors, there is always a possibility for error or theft.

If there are more chips on the table than buy-ins recorded, we will split the losses evenly between all players, winner and loser alike. If there are multiple tables, we will try to isolate the table that the loss occurred on, otherwise distribute the loss according to average table buy in size.

To minimize error, the organizer sees the expected bank chip count in the poker tools app. Before and after each buy-in or cash-out, the organizer will verify that the bank chip count matches the expected chip count, which should ensure that no buy-in goes unreported.

The Game
We generally follow Robert’s Rules of Poker when playing the game. The floor person is the organizer. However we do deviate!

Dealing & Shuffling
To speed up the game, we usually designate a volunteer player or two in the middle to deal the game. Everyone else should participate in shuffling, but there is no particular order in who should be shuffling.

To ensure a fair game, the dealer should always:

• Cut the cards when receiving them
• Use the cut card to protect the bottom of the deck
• Burn a card only when action is complete on a street
• Keep the stub above the table at all times

Anyone shuffling is encouraged to learn the tabled riffle. If you have any objections to the dealer or shuffler’s technique, please speak up.

Straddle
Straddle is in UTG positions only. Minimum straddle where the big blind is $2 or $3 is to $5, and max straddle is half your stack. Multiple straddles are allowed, and are live.

A player may announce that they are “permanently straddled”. This means that they will always straddle UTG, and shall be enforced by other members of the table.

When a straddle is announced, and someone attempts to raise to an amount that is valid for a non-straddled pot, we assume good faith and allow the player to change their raise sizing. For instance, in a $1/2/5 hand, if a player attempts to raise to $6, we assume that they meant to raise to 3x bb and allow them to raise up to $15.

Run It Multiple Times
We run a maximum of two times.

Any heads-up pot over $100 may be run multiple times by the agreement of both players.

Any multiway pot over $2,000 may be run multiple times. If a player objects but is not in a side pot, the side pot may be run multiple times.

Bomb Pots
We play a double board bomb pot when we see a monotone (three of the same suit) flop. Players must ante for bomb pots. If they do not wish to play the bomb pot, they may fold their hand on the flop. Players may agree to play more bomb pots, but any other bomb pots are optional.

Bomb pots are played Pot Limit, even for NLH.

To play a double board bomb pot, everyone antes 5 big blinds (3 bb for PLO) and play proceeds directly to the flop. At showdown, the pot is split between the best hand on the first and second boards. We do not run double board bomb pots multiple times, as there are already two boards.

Posting
You do not have to post to join the game. You also do not have to post when away from the table for a moderate amount of time, or are doing something for the benefit of the game (like grabbing food, etc).

If, however, you are away for a short duration and miss the blinds, you must post the blinds missed. A small blind posted is live.

When a player busts or sits out, we use a “dead button” for button advancement.

Ratholing
Ratholing (taking money off the table) is not allowed.

Chopping
Chopping is not allowed. Chopping makes sense in raked games (especially in California) where there is a flat drop, but there is no rake at these games so there is no reason to chop. Play the blinds!

Multi-Tabling
Playing in an app game while at a live game is not allowed. This slows down and distracts players from the game.

Thanks for reading!
Feel free to comment with any feedback! I'm working to put together a guide with everything I've learned for running a great game. If you're starting to host your own games, let me know if you have any questions! Would love to help out and add it to my guide.

I have no experience or current desire to play in a game with $4K on the table, so maybe my opinion doesn’t matter, but the banker is absolutely responsible for the count being off. You’re the only person distributing chips and should be the only one accepting payment (although in your game you guys collect from each other later, which is also bananas to me). So there are 2 reasons the count would be off: either you messed up or someone brought in chips. Either it’s your fault or you’re allowing your game to be played by untrustworthy people.

 

[si3v3]

Max stack game - i just got a notice on this feed so i must have responded prior but just a note for everyone in this feed (i realize some may already be doing this).
. Sometimes max stack isnt the best game (depending on your player pool). Sometimes the best way to have a very good long term poker game is to have a minimum and max buy in. Might keep the game strong in certain places. 50-150 max or 100-300 max. The better players may hate this (or think they do) but geographically speaking this is sometimes the best way to keep a game strong long term.
No bullshit here - i played in a game with phil hellmuth after he had won 3 or 4 wsop bracelets and he wanted his sister to play (she is a very nice person by the way and actually phil can be too even though many dont know it). Anyway the game at the time was a 25-50 dollar buy in But if you paid even the small blind of your 50 you could add n for another 50 (so essentially 99 dollar total it was a 1-2 game). This was a great and fun game that went on for years and winning 400 to 600 was a very regular thing with potentially little investment. The key was that the game was strong and could continue to flourish even though it wasnt the worlds largest poker game. What a lot of players hate is being dominated with chips. If you let the good players or the rich players max stack all the time it makes it tough on the regulars who dont have as deep a pocket. This structure is fine where it works and you can keep a game going but in areas where you have a more limited player base try this spread range versus max stack. I have seen even wealthy people get into serious financial trouble with this structure….and that is fine but if you love poker try to get a good “regular” game going and dont worry about it being the biggest or best game. I am 100% honest telling you that i have played multiple times with Phil hellmuth after he was already rich from poker playing 25-50 buy in poker - no shame in a game that keeps the competition more fair for everyone and it may even help the good players work on weaker parts of their game. With Phil he will play the highest and lowest stakes - he likes to compete and improve his game. Ive known the guy since he was a teenager. Only reason i bring him up is because i want some of you reading this to really think about your player BASE. If everyone makes 200k plus per year maybe max stack is always going to be the game but for those of you who have a mix of players the minimum to maximum “range” buy in is a nice way to level the playing field a bit.

 

[Machine]

I don't understand why it needs to be a rule though. For example, let's say Alex, Bobby, and Charlie are all-in with Charlie having the least amount of chips. Charlie only wants to run it once, but Alex and Bobby wants to run it twice. Why can't they just run it twice for the side pot and have the second board be irrelevant for the main pot? Would the rule force Charlie to participate in the second board when he doesn't want to run it twice?

In the games around Indy, if Charlie is the short stack, and if one of the other players wins the main pot they go twice for the whole thing, main and side.

The argument is that Alex and Bobby's persistence in the hand can be influenced by their understanding that they will be able to run it twice if it comes to that, which if true, disadvantages Charlie whose equity is decreased for the first runout.

This is not necessarily my argument, just one that is made by opponents of the ritual. Though I would seriously consider Charlie's interest if it were my game.

Its not a disadvantage for Charlie in equity. His equity doesn't change, once or twice, it stays the same.

It does disenfranchise Charlie though, what I see happening in most all of the games I play around town, is that when someone has an SPR =< 1 they push if they have any draws or a made hand, like nitrogen narcosis or trained monkeys they get it in, but ONLY because they believe they will run it twice and hope to hit one board because the of inflated pot.

- PLO player

 

[CHP TD]

It's in a google doc linked in the event description for the invite I send out. Most people don't read it, but we update it every once in a while when things come up. Multiple people in my friend group host games so we just refer to this collectively.


Ah, there used to be a few sentences in there about duplicate chips / robberies but it was removed so I guess that's why the heading is confusing. Those have never happened to me but I think it's worth addressing.

Let's say someone introduces a few extra $25 chips into your game. How would you deal with it? Would the host eat the loss or would it be chopped among players until you can figure out who the culprit is?

Firstly great work on having rules They are the most important thing if your going to host a game. this stops any arguments instantly. Good work.

Hosting is a labour of love. at my game I run it - i'm the bank, if the bank is out its my fault. If i go to as game where i run the risk of covering a loss, to me thats not OK at all. it also demonstrates the game is not run very well. What did you let happen that allowed this? You're passing on the consequence of a loss, by your poorly run game, onto the players. Tighten up your game. You are running it so be responsible for it. It part of the Labour of the hosting role. What if the bank is over? Do you split that up as well? Or would you keep it?

Dont forget Chips are cash. If your using generic "dice" chips anyone can buy - that's really risky. That's one thing you should fix now. Also have a way to instantly know if chips have been added.

How i handle this is using Paulsons with unique labels. i also have a drawer with a rack in it that only fits the chips in play. I sit in the seat with the chips and im the only one who touches them. Once the chips are rarcked at the end of the night i know how many chips are lost or added. Ive "lost" 2 chips in 22 years. the bank has only ever been out once by $20. i wore that because it was my fault and my responsability.

You are off to a good start hosting, but there is still some way to go before your running a great game. Keep going and look into the things you can improve.

 

[glynn]

Its not a disadvantage for Charlie in equity. His equity doesn't change, once or twice, it stays the same.

It does disenfranchise Charlie though, what I see happening in most all of the games I play around town, is that when someone has an SPR =< 1 they push if they have any draws or a made hand, like nitrogen narcosis or trained monkeys they get it in, but ONLY because they believe they will run it twice and hope to hit one board because the of inflated pot.

We're saying the same thing. His equity is affected by the persistence of hands that would have otherwise folded if not for the expectation of multiple runouts.

 

[edwardstarcraft]

Was reading through WSOP 2023's Live Action Rules and thought this might be of interest:

Rule 220: Players may choose to run side pots twice. If there are three participants involved in the hand and if the short stack participant (Main Pot) loses the hand, the run twice will apply for both pots.

 

[Machine]

I read the Winners Creed and found this:

Rule #76: No excuses, play like a champion.

 

[Taghkanic]

Late to the party, but I have a question about the payment system, plus some (overlong) hosting thoughts prompted by the discussion:

QUESTION — How does the host determine which losing players pay which winners? Just randomly, or based on whose wins/losses match up best?

I assume that since these amounts are almost never going to match up neatly, players are often going to have to send/receive payments to multiple people for each session… which seems like a headache.

OBSERVATIONS —

* Never heard of the “straddle up to half your stack” thing. Seems like something that only terrible or desperate players would do. Unless the table is so bad that you truly can risk huge amounts blind and outplay everyone with any two cards. IDGI

* I am a strictly cash host. I also do not rake my game, never lend money, and prefer not to convert electronic payments for cash.

* If players want to loan each other money, or buy cash electronically from each other because they did not bring enough, they can. But I much prefer players who bring what they need in cash, and limit themselves to losing no more than what they brought. I think this is healthier for the game, long-term.

* I much prefer having all payouts settled at the end of the night. It’s cleaner, avoids hard feelings, and I also suspect it helps the losers to reconcile with their losses faster. (If I played somewhere and lost a bunch of buyins, getting dunned for it days later would be more likely to spark the thought, “Hey, maybe that game isn’t for me…”)

* Security — The amount of cash at play in my game has grown significantly since I started hosting, even though the number of players is much smaller (one table of 2/5 cash instead of two+ tables for $100 tourney). I suppose at some point if the cash in the box keeps growing, I might need to contemplate other ideas.

But, first off, my place is at the end of a dark dead end road, quite forbidding to strangers, with lots of cameras. Almost no one shows up here unexpectedly who is not a mailman or a Jehovah’s Witness. My invite list is small and select, and the timing of the game varies quite a bit. So any organized theft would pretty much have to be an inside job.

My regs include people who, overall, can “handle themselves.” But if someone did try to rob us, I would say we don’t want any problems, hand over the bank and urge the thieves to take the money and run. And I’d cover the losses. (Then talk to my friend the D.A….)

I’m also not sure that handling the bank online would actually reduce the chance of an attempted robbery. Around here most thieves seem pretty dumb, based on how quickly they get caught. If someone heard there is a big poker game at my place, and tried to rob it, I doubt they would stop to think “Wait, maybe the game has no actual cash onsite.”

All in all, I would be more concerned about thieves getting violent than about potential losses. In that sense, being able to send them off with a big roll of bills might in a weird way provide more security than saying to the guy with a gun, “Uhhh, sorry fellas, but we don’t have any cash here, you gotta believe me, this game is managed all on Venmo… Would you like some hot dogs off the roller?”

I guess whether using actual cash or Venmo, I could keep some smaller cash bay around for that purpose of paying off visitors…

 

[edwardstarcraft]

Late to the party, but I have a question about the payment system, plus some (overlong) hosting thoughts prompted by the discussion:

QUESTION — How does the host determine which losing players pay which winners? Just randomly, or based on whose wins/losses match up best?

I assume that since these amounts are almost never going to match up neatly, players are often going to have to send/receive payments to multiple people for each session… which seems like a headache.

Regroup Poker Tools (an app which I built) manages the payouts. Here's a post where I discuss my workflow:

https://www.pokerchipforum.com/thre...ly-cashless-society.96935/page-3#post-2007607

It's simple and you can also log transactions during the game.

OBSERVATIONS —

* Never heard of the “straddle up to half your stack” thing. Seems like something that only terrible or desperate players would do. Unless the table is so bad that you truly can risk huge amounts blind and outplay everyone with any two cards. IDGI

This is a Reno/Sacramento area rule. If a player wants to commit more money blind, why not?

* I am a strictly cash host. I also do not rake my game, never lend money, and prefer not to convert electronic payments for cash.

* If players want to loan each other money, or buy cash electronically from each other because they did not bring enough, they can. But I much prefer players who bring what they need in cash, and limit themselves to losing no more than what they brought. I think this is healthier for the game, long-term.

* I much prefer having all payouts settled at the end of the night. It’s cleaner, avoids hard feelings, and I also suspect it helps the losers to reconcile with their losses faster. (If I played somewhere and lost a bunch of buyins, getting dunned for it days later would be more likely to spark the thought, “Hey, maybe that game isn’t for me…”)

* Security — The amount of cash at play in my game has grown significantly since I started hosting, even though the number of players is much smaller (one table of 2/5 cash instead of two+ tables for $100 tourney). I suppose at some point if the cash in the box keeps growing, I might need to contemplate other ideas.

But, first off, my place is at the end of a dark dead end road, quite forbidding to strangers, with lots of cameras. Almost no one shows up here unexpectedly who is not a mailman or a Jehovah’s Witness. My invite list is small and select, and the timing of the game varies quite a bit. So any organized theft would pretty much have to be an inside job.

My regs include people who, overall, can “handle themselves.” But if someone did try to rob us, I would say we don’t want any problems, hand over the bank and urge the thieves to take the money and run. And I’d cover the losses. (Then talk to my friend the D.A….)

I’m also not sure that handling the bank online would actually reduce the chance of an attempted robbery. Around here most thieves seem pretty dumb, based on how quickly they get caught. If someone heard there is a big poker game at my place, and tried to rob it, I doubt they would stop to think “Wait, maybe the game has no actual cash onsite.”

All in all, I would be more concerned about thieves getting violent than about potential losses. In that sense, being able to send them off with a big roll of bills might in a weird way provide more security than saying to the guy with a gun, “Uhhh, sorry fellas, but we don’t have any cash here, you gotta believe me, this game is managed all on Venmo… Would you like some hot dogs off the roller?”

I guess whether using actual cash or Venmo, I could keep some smaller cash bay around for that purpose of paying off visitors…

Your last comment reminds me of this "GenZ Robbery" skit on Youtube haha

 

[Machine]

@edwardstarcraft have you considered having a 'notes' area or 'the books', I would like to be able to loan money in the game and then be able to track it long term, but still close out the session

 

[edwardstarcraft]

@edwardstarcraft have you considered having a 'notes' area or 'the books', I would like to be able to loan money in the game and then be able to track it long term, but still close out the session

Yes, there’s a club feature for exactly that — you can keep a ledger for a subset of players, set credit limits, and settle games from live games and from online like PokerNow or pokerrr 2. DM me and I can do a demo.

 

[DuckFat]

I would never play this game due to the 3-day payment window, tracking, and payment methods. If you come to play you better be ready to pay any losses preferably in cash but I do have PayPal, Venmo, and CashApp. Payment apps and win/loss tracking via app is easily monitored by the government for legal/tax issues. Venmo specifically has frozen a few of my friend's accounts due to suspicious activity because people like to make sexual/funny messages and the receiver is flagged as a vendor or whatever, have fun with that. Apps also have a weekly limit so if the game ever runs big, play more than once a week, or you use it for other things you could run into cap issues.

Straddles - I don't know why there needs to be a straddle limit, personally don't care if there is a limit or not. If someone wants to straddle their entire stack then that's their choice, it's their money after all. They could also blind bet/raise which is essentially the same thing from a gambly perspective.

Chopping - Who cares if the blinds want to chop it or play it out? Again their money, their choice. I would prefer auto chop if it was just the SB flat calling and BB checking. Get the pointless hand over with and move on to the next one.

Running it multiple times - I hate the person who came up with this idea, I didn't understand it when I first heard of it and still don't see the point. Running it twice seems to result in a very high rate of split pots. To me running it twice is like you made a bet then immediately regretted it and want your money back. Running it three times is similar typically with a small win/loss but holds up the game even longer for everyone else while it gets sorted out. Never seen it run more than three times. Run it once only, take the wins and losses as they come.

 

[merkong]

Cash is King

Rock straddle or no straddle at all

Chop it blinds. It’s between you guys

Run it until the stub is gone. If you’re not involved it’s nunya

 

[Taghkanic]

I don't understand why it needs to be a rule though. For example, let's say Alex, Bobby, and Charlie are all-in with Charlie having the least amount of chips. Charlie only wants to run it once, but Alex and Bobby wants to run it twice. Why can't they just run it twice for the side pot and have the second board be irrelevant for the main pot? Would the rule force Charlie to participate in the second board when he doesn't want to run it twice?

This was obliquely discussed in another thread which I started earlier today (“Ugly Situation”). The argument goes that the bigger stacks running it twice vs. the small stack’s once can invite what some would consider soft collusion.

For example, if the two who cover Charlie know that he will only agree to run it only once, but they are both known to prefer to run it twice, it allows the bigger stacks to get it all in much wider, with their variance lessened. So it potentially hurts Charlie, unless he already has the absolute nuts.

I am somewhat persuaded by that... Much moreso if the bigger stacks discuss how many times they would run it before actually committing to the all-in, which is what occurred in the thread I posted.

The simpler argument against the practice is that running it more than once multi-way tends to slow down the game.