Cash Game Maximum Buy-ins (2 Viewers)

[Jimulacrum]

What do you think about maximum buy-ins, what they should be, how they affect play, and any other considerations that come to mind? This was getting discussed pretty heavily in another thread and seems to warrant its own discussion.

Assume NLHE for the purposes of the poll, but this could be an interesting thread about any game type.

 

[CraigT78]

My game the max is 100BB or half the big stack. I don't have any reason behind it, only that's what we have always done.

 

[krafticus]

My game the max is 100BB or half the big stack. I don't have any reason behind it, only that's what we have always done.

Mine is 200BB ($100 for a $.25/$.50 game). I’ve started doing 1/2 big stack, but nobody really goes higher than the 100. I’m not a fan of the uncapped buy in. I don’t think deep pockets should always be in command of the table, essentially

 

[CraigT78]

Mine is 200BB ($100 for a $.25/$.50 game). I’ve started doing 1/2 big stack, but nobody really goes higher than the 100. I’m not a fan of the uncapped buy in. I don’t think deep pockets should always be in command of the table, essentially

My math was off - this is the same for me. I guess I range 100 to 200 BB

.25/.50 - $100 max - $1/$2 - $200 max.

 

[upNdown]

I usually cap my .25/.50 game at $80, but it might be capped at $60 or $100, depending on the expected crowd - some guys who would rather buy in for $40 aren't thrilled with the guys buying in for $100. Personally I'll usually buy in for $60, but depending on the crowd or game, I'll go up to $100.

 

[Coyote]

100-120 BB or, eventually, half the big stack.
It would be useful if the mods could transfer here our postings from the other thread (especially the excellent analysis by @DrStrange) , in order not to repeat ourselves.

 

[Rhodeman77]

I like to have a deep stack game so I make the MIN buy in 100BB. For my $1/2 game the min is $200 max is $300 to start. Later in the night I will allow up to $500. Most people don’t use the $500 option unless they are in for at least $600 already.

When I hosted 25/50c games the MIN buy was $100 and the max was $200. Created a great deep stack game that low stakes players felt comfortable playing for $100 but still had enough cash on the table to get some players that are used to playing $1/2.

 

[Jimulacrum]

It would be useful if the mods could transfer here our postings from the other thread (especially the excellent analysis by @DrStrange) , in order not to repeat ourselves.

Next-best thing:

On my personal play: I straddle two times. If the table agrees to a mandatory straddle, I go along. This almost never happens, with the exception of the rock being in play. I also believe in a catch & release policy regarding straddles - i.e. if I win a pot where someone straddled, then I post a straddle when it is my turn.

As for my games . . . I limit straddles to a single 2bb straddle from UTG in the lower stakes games but allow any sort of crazy bets in the $1/$2 game. I do this based on the interested of the game. The players coming to the low stakes games come there for the financial safety of a small blind / small buy-in game. I have one player on a life ban from the $0.25/$0.50 because he just wouldn't quit betting $6.25 blind trying to juice the game. (While I was personally happy to take his money, the "old lady" regulars complained loudly enough to get a change made.)

And in reference to buy-in vs blinds . . . . the buy-in limits are pivotal in controlling how a game runs. Big buy-ins relative to the blinds greatly favor the better players vs the weaker players. Weak players who buy in big quickly become former players. Weak players who don't buy-in big might control their losses but their chance to score a big win are greatly diminished unless they adopt a hit-n-run plan for what to do when they get lucky.

In general big buy-ins are bad for a regular game if the host cares about keeping the lesser skilled players happy. Short stacked play favors the weaker players. I have lost one or two players from my $0.25/$0.50 - $20 max buy in game due to losses in 15+ years of hosting that game. I have lost ~50 players from my $1/$2 - match the big stack buy-in game due to loss rates. I still run or play in the $20 game 5-6 times a month, I rarely get in more than 10 $1/$2 games a year now.

Deep games are more intellectually challenging. I like them myself. But they aren't good for my games from the point of view of the host. I host something like 60 games a year and play in another 25 within a small player pool. The losing players have pain points that will end their participation if the winners get greedy. My job as the host is to keep the games healthy - if the players want a short stacked game, that is what they get.

 

[DrStrange]

The buy-in limits are pivotal in controlling how a game runs. Big buy-ins relative to the blinds greatly favor the better players vs the weaker players. Weak players who buy in big quickly become former players. Weak players who don't buy-in big might control their losses but their chance to score a big win are greatly diminished unless they adopt a hit-n-run plan for what to do when they get lucky.

In general big buy-ins are bad for a regular game if the host cares about keeping the lesser skilled players happy. Short stacked play favors the weaker players. I have lost one or two players from my $0.25/$0.50 - $20 max buy in game due to losses in 15+ years of hosting that game. I have lost ~50 players from my $1/$2 - match the big stack buy-in game due to loss rates. I still run or play in the $20 game 5-6 times a month, I rarely get in more than 10 $1/$2 games a year now vs when we started that game it was 25+ games a year.

Deep games are more intellectually challenging. I like them myself. But they aren't good for my games from the point of view of the host. I host something like 60 games a year and play in another 25 within a small player pool. The losing players have pain points that will end their participation if the winners get greedy. My job as the host is to keep the games healthy - if the players want a short stacked game, that is what they get.

 

[MrCatPants]

Great minds think alike - I started a thread on this like 10 minutes afterward. Here's my post.

In the game I host (which I inherited about half the player base from a long running game that petered out), I run .50/1 with $40 buy-ins. Yes, it's short stacked, but re-buys get on the table pretty quick and effectively make the game play deeper. It sounds a lot like the .25/.50 game @DrStrange references. It's like fun-sized candy bars - you end up eating more when they're smaller. Ideally though, I'd love to push the initial buy-in up long term, but I think it's going to force me to split the game eventually into a "smaller" and "bigger" game based on disparity in disposable income.

In the game I attend regularly, it plays $1/$1 dealer's choice, with initial buy-ins from $40-$100. This one is more active though, and usually multiple people are walking away with $500-$1000 apiece at the end of the night. Same concept though, re-buys get on the table fast.

 

[ChaosRock]

Not sure if the "Progressive" option should be among all the others. It can work with any of the above options. I certainly have an opinion on where my preferred buy-in should be when one starts the game and everyone is on the same playing field but I also believe in as the game gets deeper, one should be able to buy-in up to a certain percentage of the largest stack. So for me, it's "150 to 200 BB + Progressive".

 

[colter ripton]

I like playing deep also.

I think around 100bbs is fine for initial buyins. But then I like a 75% or 100% of the big stack rule.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Not sure if the "Progressive" option should be among all the others. It can work with any of the above options. I certainly have an opinion on where my preferred buy-in should be when one starts the game and everyone is on the same playing field but I also believe in as the game gets deeper, one should be able to buy-in up to a certain percentage of the largest stack. So for me, it's "150 to 200 BB + Progressive".

Yeah, it's hard to describe something like that succinctly in a poll.

I consider a progressive structure to be distinct from a fixed max. If a progressive max is in place, it's often much more relevant to the size/texture of the game than whatever the initial max is. Seems like it warrants its own slot in the poll.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Whether players actually take advantage of the progressive max is another interesting question.

I saw some folks in the other thread mention that they have a progressive max, but no one really uses it. Clearly, the existing max is sufficient to keep the players happy. If someone does start matching the deep stack (or half of it), it could be very off-putting to the established player base.

As much as I like it in general, I almost want to recommend taking it out of the rules in a case like that. There seems like little benefit to keeping the rule in place, but plenty of potential downside. Sometimes all it takes for players to flee a game is feeling like they got screwed just one time.

 

[Old State]

The buy-in limits are pivotal in controlling how a game runs. Big buy-ins relative to the blinds greatly favor the better players vs the weaker players.

In general big buy-ins are bad for a regular game if the host cares about keeping the lesser skilled players happy.

I whole heartedly agree with these two points. Nothing kills a regular cash game quicker. This is also why I keep my $1/2+ players away from my $.25/.50 game as they would always ask to buy in for more or ...actually way more likely...to ask to raise the blinds.

 

[ChaosRock]

Whether players actually take advantage of the progressive max is another interesting question.

I saw some folks in the other thread mention that they have a progressive max, but no one really uses it. Clearly, the existing max is sufficient to keep the players happy. If someone does start matching the deep stack (or half of it), it could be very off-putting to the established player base.

As much as I like it in general, I almost want to recommend taking it out of the rules in a case like that. There seems like little benefit to keeping the rule in place, but plenty of potential downside. Sometimes all it takes for players to flee a game is feeling like they got screwed just one time.

Yep, I totally get it. My only point was that there's a big difference between starting at 50BB + Progressive and 200BB + Progressive. But I get your point.

I find an equal amount of players who favor Progressive vs. a fixed number of BB. To me, the Progressive aspect is not as important as the min buy-in, that's why my vote was 150-200BB. Having the option though, seems always better FOR ME, but I understand it's not for everyone.

Ultimately, it is about maintaining a healthy game and some adjustments will occur for sure, on blinds, buy-ins, re-buys, straddles, etc... Personal preference sometimes goes against the betterment of a particular game.

 

[Old State]

Progressive buyins is another concept I never heard of until I heard it here. I’m definitely not sold in the logic there. Our max buy has always been the same.

Also, blinds have always been what sets the expectations for the size of the game in all the years I’ve played. First question has always been “what blinds are we playing?” or “what are the stakes”. Then, maybe, I will get asked “what are people buying in for?” I think the last question is more rooted on what the minimum may be.

I believe that ~ 100BBs became the standard because that is a good ratio between being able to “play right” and being able to extract value vs not risking too much if you take a bad beat. In NL luck impacts the game in a far greater scale monetarily than in limit.

In Jonathan Littles book on small stakes cash holdem he always used a $200 buy in for a $1/2NL game and he may have explained the reasoning like I just did.

Here is a well verbalized take on the “100BB rule”
https://www.pokerwebsites.com/new/100-bb/

 

[Jimulacrum]

Also, blinds have always been what sets the expectations for the size of the game in all the years I’ve played.

This may be the case in many unimaginative, NLHE-only crowds, but what really sets the expectations are player tendencies and the amount of money in play. The best examples I've seen of this are games with no blinds.

I actually played a game one time where there were no blinds or antes and no max buy-in. No-limit betting structure. Everyone was expected to put down $100 to start, but we were free to add whatever we wanted. (And it all played in cash on the table.) Dealer's choice, new game every hand. It played like a small $1/$2 game, not just because of the amount of money, but because the players were simply conditioned through years of play to bet $5, $10, $15, $20 at a time instead of trying to bet near the size of the pot.

At another dealer's choice game I play once in a great while, we play a lot of flop games, but there are no blinds unless it's specifically NLHE. Again, everyone starts with $100, and it's no cap and no-limit betting (unless we're playing a 7/27 variant, in which case it's $1–5 spread limit). New game every hand, just like the first game. Instead of blinds, the dealer antes for everyone, which is usually $6 or $7. The money in the pot at the start of each hand is roughly the same as in a $2/$5 game, but it plays nowhere near that big. The effective stakes are again set by the tendencies and the risk tolerance of the players in the game.

I've found this to also be the case when there are blinds. They're not totally irrelevant, but they're only a portion of the deciding factors in how the game will play.

 

[JustinInMN]

You have to have some sort of intial pot, otherwise anyone that leaves the gate without the nuts is making a mistake.

 

[Old State]

This may be the case in many unimaginative, NLHE-only crowds, but what really sets the expectations are player tendencies and the amount of money in play. The best examples I've seen of this are games with no blinds.

I actually played a game one time where there were no blinds or antes and no max buy-in. No-limit betting structure. Everyone was expected to put down $100 to start, but we were free to add whatever we wanted. (And it all played in cash on the table.) Dealer's choice, new game every hand. It played like a small $1/$2 game, not just because of the amount of money, but because the players were simply conditioned through years of play to bet $5, $10, $15, $20 at a time instead of trying to bet near the size of the pot.

At another dealer's choice game I play once in a great while, we play a lot of flop games, but there are no blinds unless it's specifically NLHE. Again, everyone starts with $100, and it's no cap and no-limit betting (unless we're playing a 7/27 variant, in which case it's $1–5 spread limit). New game every hand, just like the first game. Instead of blinds, the dealer antes for everyone, which is usually $6 or $7. The money in the pot at the start of each hand is roughly the same as in a $2/$5 game, but it plays nowhere near that big. The effective stakes are again set by the tendencies and the risk tolerance of the players in the game.

I've found this to also be the case when there are blinds. They're not totally irrelevant, but they're only a portion of the deciding factors in how the game will play.

Some may say say “unimaginative” others may say “unnecessary”.

I am an easy drive from AC and played the majority of my poker with players who play in the casino environment. That is their point of reference and the expectations as what is the “norm” for me and many of my group.

If I was to suggest “no blinds” or something like that the response would be something like “what the hell you talking about?” among other sarcastic comments. No one would play that.

We have played nothing but holdem for over 15 years. The only change was from limit to no limit. No one ever seems to get bored and can play for 8+ hours at a stretch. I could probably get an Omaha game but it has never been requested.

 

[Coyote]

For context and the record, here is a compilation of my posts in the other thread (I think I started it all):

"The max buy-in is another huge issue which deserves its own topic.
A game is determined at least as much by the max buy-in as by the blinds (especially in NL).
I think you can't name a game after the blinds if the max buy-in doesn't stay south of 150BB.
A supposed .25/.50 game with $100 max buy-in is in fact a .50/$1 game if you want a true player's role, not a premium spectator's seat.

I wouldn't call this a rule. Players are free to agree to any combination of stakes & max buy-in that makes everyone of them happy.
It' about describing a game precisely, when inviting someone or when trying to agree with others to a game. The stakes are just half the game's name.

By "premium spectator's seat" I mean being forced to play ultra-tight (to an actually unplayable -and unpaying- degree) because the betting is disproportionately superior to the blinds, and outside the comfort level of a person prepared to play at the specific supposed stakes."

 

[pltrgyst]

For my games, minimum buy-in is 100BB, and maximum is 200BB.

 

[Jimulacrum]

You have to have some sort of intial pot, otherwise anyone that leaves the gate without the nuts is making a mistake.

This was my first thought, before I saw how this game actually played out. Prime example of a group of guys who just wanted to gamble. With the hands they were calling with, it would have been a huge mistake not to come out betting with a fair range of non-nut hands.

They didn't think of poker from a risk-versus-reward perspective like a lot of serious players do. They weren't looking at what was already in the pot; they were thinking about their hands and whether they wanted to play them. The game spurred its own action instead of needing dead money or forced bets.

 

[Rhodeman77]

Max buy-in is important obviously. But the min buy-in is just as important. If a game has 7 players all with 200BB or more and 2 players with 50bb or less it changes the dynamic of the game in a bad way for the players that were expecting a deep stack game.

It is important to have a suitable range of buy-in. Not just a max or a min.

 

[davin]

No cap at my game, 1/3 gets huge


Oh and min buy in is 200$

 

[Jimulacrum]

Max buy-in is important obviously. But the min buy-in is just as important. If a game has 7 players all with 200BB or more and 2 players with 50bb or less it changes the dynamic of the game in a bad way for the players that were expecting a deep stack game.

It is important to have a suitable range of buy-in. Not just a max or a min.

Very true. I've played in some public cardrooms that had what I considered an inappropriately low minimum buy-in of $60 for $1/$2 PLO8. It didn't always cause a problem, but sometimes a player would arrive with a pocket full of $20s (or an absurd number of trips to the ATM) and repeatedly rebuy for the min.

Most of us were playing $200–300, and the $60 player would quickly become an annoyance. Not only did he mess with the dynamic, but he slowed the already somewhat slow game by creating a constant need for side pots, on top of the split pots inherent to the game.

 

[Jimulacrum]

No cap at my game, 1/3 gets huge


Oh and min buy in is 200$

Sorry, I actually forgot to add uncapped to the list of poll options. It's in there now, in case you want your vote counted.

 

[JustinInMN]

The game spurred its own action instead of needing dead money or forced bets.

And they are all still making a mistake by leaving the gate without the nuts.

But it sounds like what's really going on is there's an implicit agreement to bet more hands in place of forced antes and blinds. If they never wise up, good for them. But eventually they could figure this out and there won't be action.

 

[Jimulacrum]

And they are all still making a mistake by leaving the gate without the nuts.

Not necessarily.

Consider a simplified game where it's heads-up, and each player gets only one card. A bare ace is the nuts.

Suppose that you're Player A, and Player B is a clueless type of gambler. Player A always acts first. You know that when you bet, he'll call with anything ten or higher. You should clearly bet all your aces and kings (and queens too, if you want to throw the guy a variance bone). The raw strength of your hand matters less than the relative strength of your hand against his range.

This game was like that. People would be calling a bet of $2–5 on third street in Seven Card Stud with as little as jacks or tens, over a totally dry pot. There was no implicit agreement; it's just how they played cards. They didn't understand the concept of requiring money in the pot to justify their bets.

It would be madness to wait around for rolled-up trip aces to play in a game like that.

 

[trigs]

I like 200BB stacks for cash games. Deep enough to make it interesting. I personally don't like short stack play for cash games. I have seen a $0.25BB game with a $20 max buy-in for example. That's just a shove fest and not very fun IMHO.