Match the Stack Debate (4 Viewers)

[Machine]

Let's be clear, in a cash game, the short stack has the advantage over multiple deep stacks.

A few things set the pace of the game: the blinds and this subject, having the most influence.

I have had debates with a guy who has never had a job and has only played poker for the last 20 years. He has an advanced degree/education and is the most well-read person I've ever met.

My friend advocates for an uncapped buy-in, but he argues for a match stack if you have a cap.

I think Romulus and Remus would also agree on an uncapped buy-in. However, the game I run is $100 max for the first 3 hours. Then, you can buy 1/2 of the big stack if / when someone has 400 in front of them. I feel that this keeps it friendly.

If I'm running a ranked game, it's match stack, and the player base is all nits and degens. We aren't using wooden swords, and there isn't much soft play.

 

[Taghkanic]

They are separate things. Traditional casino rules have a table max and always let players top off when ever ever they are under that. In AC it was always common for someone to put actual cash behind their chips while not in a hand. Dealer will usually take the cash and give chips …but not over the table max.

I noticed in Vegas and when I played in Boston dealers doesn’t take cash for chips so players often have them in their pocket.

Interesting background, but not really the point I was making.

If someone loses a big hand but still has a few chips behind, they don’t have to lose their remaining stack to top off to whatever the allowed max is, including if it is a match-the-stack or half-the-biggest stack game.

 

[Old State]

Interesting background, but not really the point I was making.

If someone loses a big hand but still has a few chips behind, they don’t have to lose their remaining stack to top off to whatever the allowed max is, including if it is a match-the-stack or half-the-biggest stack game.

That’s usually not how cash poker works. Sounds like you are describing a tournament rebuy.

In a casino…and in my game you can top off whenever you like. I’ll be at Borgata tomorrow night where the $1/3 max is $400. If I lose the first hand and am down $40 and can add $40 back to my stack anytime after that hand

 

[Taghkanic]

That’s usually not how cash poker works. Sounds like you are describing a tournament rebuy.

In a casino…and in my game you can top off whenever you like. I’ll be at Borgata tomorrow night where the $1/3 max is $400. If I lose the first hand and am down $40 and can add $40 back to my stack anytime after that hand

It certainly is how cash games work. (I host 2/5, play in other private games, and at casinos).

I have never played in any cash game where there was one max for rebuys and another for topping off.

In cash, you can top off to the maximum (or less) at any time.

The max in my game is $1K to start. The max increases if anyone builds a stack larger than $2K to half the biggest stack.

So if a player gets knocked down early to $150 and no one has more than $2K, the max is still $1,000. So the player with $150 can add anything from $1-$850 (=$1K).

If someone instead had $4K, the max becomes $2K, and the player with $150 can add anywhere between $1-$1,850 (=$2K).

It’s really not complicated.

Hosts just have to decide what max they prefer in their games. I find the half-the-biggest option is better because it gives players a fighting chance to catch up, without letting bigger bankrolls abuse the game.

 

[Old State]

It certainly is how cash games work. (I host 2/5, play in other private games, and at casinos).

I have never played in any cash game where there was one max for rebuys and another for topping off.

In cash, you can top off to the maximum (or less) at any time.



Hosts just have to decide what max they prefer in their games. I find the half-the-biggest option is better because it gives players a fighting chance to catch up, without letting bigger bankrolls abuse the game.

You are talking about a situation that I never mentioned. I never heard of that or even considered it either.

The thread is about match the stack not top offs. Not sure where you were even going with any of this which is why I wasn’t following what you were talking about.

 

[allforcharity]

The thread is about match the stack not top offs. Not sure where you were even going with any of this which is why I wasn’t following what you were talking about.

Well, it is functionally the same thing. In a cash game you should be able to add to your stack anytime (unless you are in a hand). The question is if it should be capped, and to what level. There should not have to be a prerequisite to be busted, as in tournaments.

I prefer hard caps, myself, regardless of the size of the big stack or how much money is on the table, and should be relative to stakes. I agree that the better players who are out to fleece as much money as possible out of the worse players do prefer higher match-the-stack amounts.

 

[Tonystark137]

Somewhat related, I have gone north twice north when a player was cashing out. I bought their <75bb stack instead of bothering with change and etc. I covered all the stacks in both situation so I don't think it mattered.

 

[Old State]

Well, it is functionally the same thing. In a cash game you should be able to add to your stack anytime (unless you are in a hand). The question is if it should be capped, and to what level. There should not have to be a prerequisite to be busted, as in tournaments.

I prefer hard caps, myself, regardless of the size of the big stack or how much money is on the table, and should be relative to stakes. I agree that the better players who are out to fleece as much money as possible out of the worse players do prefer higher match-the-stack amounts.

Not following how it’s the same. If there is a max buy in of $400 and you lose a hand for $100 in a hand, you can top off back to $400 total in the table. I also have no clue what he was talking about with having to lose all your chips.

Matching the stack could be way more. The other night during my $1/1 $120 max game a guy ended up with $900 in front of him. No way would it make sense to allow anyone to buy in for half the stack let alone the whole thing.

Actually the other night NOT allowing match the stack helped keep the game going to 4am. There were more all in shoves than I ever remember. My guys mostly bring a lot of money but people would have lost a lot more quicker and just left.

 

[allforcharity]

Not following how it’s the same. If there is a max buy in of $400 and you lose a hand for $100 in a hand, you can top off back to $400 total in the table. I also have no clue what he was talking about with having to lose all your chips.

Matching the stack could be way more. The other night during my $1/1 $120 max game a guy ended up with $900 in front of him. No way would it make sense to allow anyone to buy in for half the stack let alone the whole thing.

Actually the other night NOT allowing match the stack helped keep the game going to 4am. There were more all in shoves than I ever remember. My guys mostly bring a lot of money but people would have lost a lot more quicker and just left.

Just in case it wasn't clear, I am not a fan of match the stack. It pressures those with early losses to try and win their money back as soon as possible, and we all know how that usually ends up.

 

[Taghkanic]

You are talking about a situation that I never mentioned. I never heard of that or even considered it either.

I guess you missed comments and questions above from others such as Kam and JoeyShin.

 

[Taghkanic]

Matching the stack could be way more. The other night during my $1/1 $120 max game a guy ended up with $900 in front of him. No way would it make sense to allow anyone to buy in for half the stack let alone the whole thing.

It depends on the bankrolls and skills of the players. With some groups it would make tons of sense.

Actually the other night NOT allowing match the stack helped keep the game going to 4am. There were more all in shoves than I ever remember. My guys mostly bring a lot of money but people would have lost a lot more quicker and just left.

Or it could have worked out the other way: If the players get tired of playing one-street BINGO with the giant stack, they may leave early.

But again, it depends on the bankrolls and skills of the group. If some were in a game where they could only buy back for 10-15% of the largest stack, and s/he is just using that advantage to run over the table, many might pick up and try another day or game.

Anyway it seems like you already were dead set against changing your buyin rules before posting, so I’m not sure what the goal here is.

P.S. You mentioned that you have never seen match-the-stack in a casino. I’ve seen it often at Turning Stone, and Rivers Schenectady sometimes spreads it if enough players request it.

 

[Rakrul]

Match the stack is the killer of fish. The deeper the stacks, the more skilled player has an advantage and the faster the fish will lose its bankroll. There's a reason why online casinos cap at 100bb, it's to not allow the grinders to kill off fish faster than they're coming in.

 

[Taghkanic]

Match the stack is the killer of fish. The deeper the stacks, the more skilled player has an advantage and the faster the fish will lose its bankroll. There's a reason why online casinos cap at 100bb, it's to not allow the grinders to kill off fish faster than they're coming in.

Are other people just trying to fill their tables with fish, and to exploit them long-term? I was led to believe we were all hosting friendly home games

I think of my game as both a social event and a lab for getting better at poker. I prefer my own table to feature plenty of tough, well-rolled players, not just whales, fishes and other aquatic life... I’ve periodically increased the stakes, because I am aiming to learn how to better survive and exploit bigger games (whether private games, or at casinos). So when I play elsewhere, I’m almost always surprised how much softer the game is.

It’s kind of like a hitter using doughnuts on his bat in the on-deck circle. When you take them off, it feels like you’re swinging three times faster. So if half-the-big-stack or match-the-stack chases off some fish, so be it.

(I also host as a sort of design challenge, to create a room and a table which evolves toward more comfortable and better-quality materials, to the extent my budget allows, but that’s a different topic.)

 

[Rakrul]

Are other people just trying to fill their tables with fish, and to exploit them long-term? I was led to believe we were all hosting friendly home games

I think of my game as both a social event and a lab for getting better at poker. I prefer my own table to feature plenty of tough, well-rolled players, not just whales, fishes and other aquatic life... I’ve periodically increased the stakes, because I am aiming to learn how to better survive and exploit bigger games (whether private games, or at casinos). So when I play elsewhere, I’m almost always surprised how much softer the game is.

It’s kind of like a hitter using doughnuts on his bat in the on-deck circle. When you take them off, it feels like you’re swinging three times faster. So if half-the-big-stack or match-the-stack chases off some fish, so be it.

(I also host as a sort of design challenge, to create a room and a table which evolves toward more comfortable and better-quality materials, to the extent my budget allows, but that’s a different topic.)

Well, the fish has finite lifespan and I don't want a marginally losing player to be a massive loser and hate poker and I can't boast of a 50+ player pool. Also for new players coming in with 1-3 buy-ins in their pockets and sitting amongst 500bb stacks is a pretty much guarantee to not see that player again.

 

[Old State]

It depends on the bankrolls and skills of the players. With some groups it would make tons of sense.



Or it could have worked out the other way: If the players get tired of playing one-street BINGO with the giant stack, they may leave early.

But again, it depends on the bankrolls and skills of the group. If some were in a game where they could only buy back for 10-15% of the largest stack, and s/he is just using that advantage to run over the table, many might pick up and try another day or game.

Anyway it seems like you already were dead set against changing your buyin rules before posting, so I’m not sure what the goal here is.

P.S. You mentioned that you have never seen match-the-stack in a casino. I’ve seen it often at Turning Stone, and Rivers Schenectady sometimes spreads it if enough players request it.

These senerios don’t seem to actually happen.

I’m not dead set. I said I have an opinion and if someone could make a logical argument for it I’d consider. What you mostly see is people just explaining what they do at their game…not the reasoning behind it.

Right now I don’t see any logical argument for it. It far more bad than good. Even many of my better players we against it. Again…casinos don’t allow it. If it made the game better they would

 

[Old State]

Are other people just trying to fill their tables with fish, and to exploit them long-term? I was led to believe we were all hosting friendly home games

Fish is not a the best term. You need to constantly be bringing in newer players…many of which won’t be as skilled. Like I said before my game is about 1/3 very solid players. Another 1/3 are decent players with a lower risk tolerance. The final third is more novice types that come and go from game to game.

I’ve been playing poker for over 30 years with a lot of good players. I can also watch videos on YouTube if I want to further explore improving my game. Solid players are the minority of poker players in general. My number one goal is to keep a game going and seats always filled. Raising the stakes is one way to kill a game….and allowing match the stakes effectively does that. So far I’m not convinced

 

[jxfan]

Over the years it’s almost always aggressive players advocating for it. About 1/3 of my crew are very solid players with high risk tolerance and/or disposable income. One of my goals to keeping the game healthy and regular is always considering the other 2/3rds. For years I resisted moving the stakes up which that 1/3 often asks to do. I know that will be the end of the game

+1 on this - you understand your player base best, and matching the stack is an overall gauge on risk tolerance for how much people bring to the table and can rebuy for. If your $1/$2 game actually runs like a $2/$5 game, then perhaps it is possible. But typically, raising stakes will lead to burnout and loss of players Not everybody comes with a grand behind

 

[Old State]

+1 on this - you understand your player base best, and matching the stack is an overall gauge on risk tolerance for how much people bring to the table and can rebuy for. If your $1/$2 game actually runs like a $2/$5 game, then perhaps it is possible. But typically, raising stakes will lead to burnout and loss of players Not everybody comes with a grand behind

Yes. Right now our $1/1 $120 game plays like a 2005 era $1/2 game …if that makes sense. When NL was first offered at the AC casinos the most common buyin was $150-200 with a $300 max. Our NL $1/2 games at home were always a $150 buyin back then. Right now the AC $1/3 games have a $400 max and most buyin for that.
Last Friday we had multiple $120 re buys and several top offs. With 9 players we had around $3000 in the bank. That’s probably a little on the high side of average but it would have been out of control if I had a match the stack or even half stack. Most of the table would have been sitting with close to $2/5 stacks

 

[PepperPaul]

I don't post here as often as I use to, but I still take pictures of my sessions. Pics from my second session at the $1/$2 match the big stack game where I won $1050.



View attachment 1500410

If you are reading some of these posts with a measure of incredulity, then you need to broaden your horizons. There are a number of members here who play for stakes that dwarf your typical $1/$2 game.

Okay but what kind of monster stacks their $5 chips 12 high?

 

[Natskule]

I host a semi regular cash game…usually $1/1 $120 max buying. In 20+ of running cash games matching the stack never came up until recently.

A little context around my home game - the core nucleus of players it started with are seasoned casino players and we are about an hour and a half outside AC. The reason I bought my first set of ASMs and Kems …and built a table …years ago was to run a casino style game without the rake. The Borgata game we all played in…but in my basement. There is no match the stack in AC and I’ve never seen it in any casino. Yet I see it talked about here as if it pretty common in home games

Last night the topic came up and was debated. The majorly of the table felt it had more cons than pros…but didn’t have a super strong stance

I’ve never liked the concept because I’ve always felt it could allow the game to play WAY above the initial stakes and that in the end hurt the game as it could facilitate average to below average players losing more faster. And then not coming back

The fact casinos don’t allow it makes me feel they also think it is bad for the game. It only benefits better players or those with higher risk tolerance (the minority of players) and would serves as a deterrent to keep the weaker players we all need in the game. This is why I moved my game down from $1/2 $300 buying to what it is now about 8 years ago. The game is much healhtehr at the slightly lower stakes.

But I’d love to hear a logic and reason based debate of the pros and cons…

For the longevity of the game, I think you are doing it right and it proves that matching the stack, while more fair in theory, will drive players out.

 

[detroitdad]

Match half the big stack at least. Why make a player go broke before they can reload?

This is how I run my game. I run .25/.50, $100 max dealers choice. Top off up to $100, or half the deep stack. Honestly, there are only a couple of us that will actually do this. Most rebuy for the $100, which is plenty tbh for our stakes.

 

[Mojo1312]

Okay but what kind of monster stacks their $5 chips 12 high?

I never mentioned monster stacks. I simply stated that of the five players left when the first game broke, my $1200 was the short stack. Part of this was due to the match the big stack rule.

FWIW, the term monster stack is subjective.

 

[chippitydoodah]

I never mentioned monster stacks. I simply stated that of the five players left when the first game broke, my $1200 was the short stack. Part of this was due to the match the stack rule.

FWIW, the term monster stack is subjective.

What kind of monster (person) stacks their chips 12 high?

It was a joke

 

[upNdown]

Also for new players coming in with 1-3 buy-ins in their pockets and sitting amongst 500bb stacks is a pretty much guarantee to not see that player again.

Again, it’s not impossible for guys with 500 bb stacks to play reasonably within the stakes. Maybe it’s less common

What kind of monster (person) stacks their chips 12 high?

It was a joke

12-chip stacks is no joke.

 

[chippitydoodah]

Again, it’s not impossible for guys with 500 bb stacks to play reasonably within the stakes. Maybe it’s less common

12-chip stacks is no joke.

I thought maybe he's a baker

 

[Mojo1312]

What kind of monster (person) stacks their chips 12 high?

It was a joke

Sorry. I responded to the post using my phone while at work. Hero has learned that he has a tendency to knock over his chips during the evening when stacked 20 high.

Any observer will notice from my pics in various threads that Hero stacks his chips 12 or 15 high. For whatever reason this irritates the host of Tuesday's game to no end.

 

[Mojo1312]

I thought maybe he's a baker

With all that cake on the table in front of Hero, why would you not?

Yum! Yum!

 

[TheYeti]

I used to allow match the stack, but the game started playing too big for my liking. About a year ago, I knocked it down to half the big stack, but the game is still playing too big.

At my next game, I've let everyone know that I'm now only allowing buy-ins/re-loads over the max ($100) when your stack is below $50, then you can re-buy up to $150.

We'll see how it goes in a couple weeks.

 

[PepperPaul]

Sorry. I responded to the post using my phone while at work. Hero has learned that he has a tendency to knock over his chips during the evening when stacked 20 high.

Any observer will notice from my pics in various threads that Hero stacks his chips 12 or 15 high. For whatever reason this irritates the host of Tuesday's game to no end.

You sir, are no hero. This makes you the villain in every poker story. Your host is rightly offended. I’m on tilt and will lose at my next game from just looking at your photos. I’ll be back on Thursday to post about and blame you for my loss.

 

[Mojo1312]

You sir, are no hero. This makes you the villain in every poker story. Your host is rightly offended. I’m on tilt and will lose at my next game from just looking at your photos. I’ll be back on Thursday to post about and blame you for my loss.

I like your salt sir! You have become my favorite member on this site.