Cash Game New to this (1 Viewer)

[Lemonzest]

You’re missing the point... the guy with $30 has little to NO power to capitalize on timed strategic betting (bluffing). Hard to bluff a monster stack. Also when the $30 stack gets a monster hand, they’re only making $30...

And since you’re essentially playing for stacks every hand, it narrows your range.

I guess there are different ways to look at it. After all being bullied is subjective... I always find it funny when people buy in for large amounts and then the table exclaims "oh no thats not fair now he will bully the table..."

This is really the sentiment I am talking about and it is simply not accurate. Playing poker is just about exploiting other people's tendencies and you can do this with a big stack or a small stack. The idea that having a small stack puts you at a disadvantage is not true and this has been seen clearly with the trend of short stacking players online.

If the guy with the big stack is playing loose and aggressive then one needs to adjust their game accordingly (ie play tight). If the guy with the big stack is playing ultra tight waiting for a big hand to get all in then you can maybe get by with some well timed bluffs.

Similarly, if a short stacked player is loose and aggressive going all in frequently then one also needs to tighten up.

 

[Trihonda]

The idea that having a small stack puts you at a disadvantage is not true

Unfortunately we will just have to disagree on this.

I am not claiming I’ve never bought in short in Vegas (less than the max) under certain circumstances, but I clearly understand that if there are monster stacks at the table, I’m at a disadvantage. I’m likely to bi for say $100-200, but only if that seems to be the table avg. if there’s a few $1k stacks, it’d be dumb for me to BI for $100 in a 1/2 game. Same with a $30-40 stack vs a $400 stack. They have a 10:1 chip advantage.

 

[Rhodeman77]

It is much easier to play correctly with a short stack. Almost all of your decisions will be made either preflop or on the flop. There is almost no post flop play. So for weaker players it is a sound strategy to buy in short so that they aren’t easily out played.

It is a much more boring way to play because it is almost all folding with the occasional 3 bet shove or open raise.

It feels much more like a tournament style of play than what most people consider a true cash game. Short stacking doesn’t allow for the play of suited connectors or small pocket pairs as the player isn’t deep enough to get the correct implied odds or even to create fold equity as a semi bluff.

So much of the game is cut off when playing a short stack game.

What’s worse is if several players at the table are playing this way it forces the rest of the table to also play a short stack style or they will be doubling up the short stacks on a regular basis.

If ever there is more than 2 players on a short stack from their initial buy in I am looking for another table if at a casino or not likely to play that home game very often.

 

[detroitdad]

Unfortunately we will just have to disagree on this.

I am not claiming I’ve never bought in short in Vegas (less than the max) under certain circumstances, but I clearly understand that if there are monster stacks at the table, I’m at a disadvantage. I’m likely to bi for say $100-200, but only if that seems to be the table avg. if there’s a few $1k stacks, it’d be dumb for me to BI for $100 in a 1/2 game. Same with a $30-40 stack vs a $400 stack. They have a 10:1 chip advantage.

It is much easier to play correctly with a short stack. Almost all of your decisions will be made either preflop or on the flop. There is almost no post flop play. So for weaker players it is a sound strategy to buy in short so that they aren’t easily out played.

It is a much more boring way to play because it is almost all folding with the occasional 3 bet shove or open raise.

It feels much more like a tournament style of play than what most people consider a true cash game. Short stacking doesn’t allow for the play of suited connectors or small pocket pairs as the player isn’t deep enough to get the correct implied odds or even to create fold equity as a semi bluff.

So much of the game is cut off when playing a short stack game.

What’s worse is if several players at the table are playing this way it forces the rest of the table to also play a short stack style or they will be doubling up the short stacks on a regular basis.

If ever there is more than 2 players on a short stack from their initial buy in I am looking for another table if at a casino or not likely to play that home game very often.

concur with both statements.

 

[Lemonzest]

They have a 10:1 chip advantage.

 

[Shaggy]

Unfortunately we will just have to disagree on this.

I am not claiming I’ve never bought in short in Vegas (less than the max) under certain circumstances, but I clearly understand that if there are monster stacks at the table, I’m at a disadvantage. I’m likely to bi for say $100-200, but only if that seems to be the table avg. if there’s a few $1k stacks, it’d be dumb for me to BI for $100 in a 1/2 game. Same with a $30-40 stack vs a $400 stack. They have a 10:1 chip advantage.

If the big stack is splashing around and "bullying" AND you are not adjusting your strategy, then yes, you are at a disadvantage. If they are splashing around AND you sit back and wait for a hand that is reasonably strong against his range and move in on him... and he calls. You have taken advantage of him. Poker.

 

[Shaggy]

Another example. If there are some big stacks and in general the game is playing bigger than normal. Let's say its a 25c/50c game where typical PF raises are to $2.. You are normally playing comfortable with $50 in front of you. In the normal game, someone makes the $2 PF raise and you look down at 87 suited in late position. You do some 10x/20x math (look up Bart Hanson). It is possible to make 20x your call amount (20x$2=$40) so you are right to call. You call.

Now in the bigger than normal game. Typical PF raises are to $8. You have your normal $50 stack. Someone raises to $8, you look down at 87 suited. You ask yourself, can I make 20x my call amount... 20x$8= $160. The answer is no and you should fold.

If you are calling in the second situation, then you are playing at a disadvantage... but not because you have fewer chips... but because you are making bad decisions.

 

[Rhodeman77]

Very well put @Shaggy

Just because someone has a short stack doesn’t mean they are playing it correctly. Most people don’t want to fold 85%+ of the time so they will start calling with speculative hands even though they can’t make enough from them the few times they do hit because of their short stack.

 

[v1pe]

That's why *correct* short stack play is effective but boring.

 

[Lemonzest]

A bit more context as to where I am coming from and why I allow uncapped buy ins at my game. At the beginning of the night everyone buys in for 20 (anyone could buy in for more at the start of the night but no one ever does). After 2-3 hours of play or so invariably someone will be stuck 2-3 buy ins.

Now the person who is stuck may feel they don't have much time to get back to even. This is where the uncapped buy ins happen. Myself and another friend have both bought in for 100 toward the end of the night after being stuck 60 or so (3 buy ins).

The game doesn't play any different when we buy in for a hundo. We are not making it 2-3 bucks pre every hand. Now IMO this offers the other people at the table a tremendous advantage as we bought in for a large amount while being frustrated, on tilt, and chasing our losses....

 

[Old State]

Back to the question from the original post....

I think it's best to follow standard casino rules. Min ~30 big blinds and max no more than 100-150 big blinds. Allow reloads at anytime up to the max buyin. People should be able to buyin or leave at any time.

This is standard cash poker. No need to reinvent the wheel. Cash poker was played for 200 years before tournaments and the casinos have kind of figured it out by now.

If your "stuck" a few buys in late into the night so be it. There is always next time. Cash games never end. They are purpetual with big "breaks" in between.

 

[Trihonda]

That's why *correct* short stack play is effective but boring.

Two players of equal skill. Who has advantage, large stack, shorter stack, or is there no advantage?

 

[v1pe]

Two players of equal skill. Who has advantage, large stack, shorter stack, or is there no advantage?

I don't believe there is any advantage on either side. Both players should be playing to whatever the effective stack is.

 

[Rhodeman77]

Two players of equal skill. Who has advantage, large stack, shorter stack, or is there no advantage?

If you are saying they are both equal at playing short stack and deep stack poker then there is no advantage if they both play them the same.

But if the deep stack player plays deep stack poker while the other guy plays correct short stack, then the clear advantage goes to the short stack player.

 

[v1pe]

If you are saying they are both equal at playing short stack and deep stack poker then there is no advantage if they both play them the same.

But if the deep stack player plays deep stack poker while the other guy plays correct short stack, then the clear advantage goes to the short stack player.

Agreed. The deep stack player should always play the correct strategy per whatever the effective stack is. E.G. don't try to bluff or semibluff with very little fold equity or implied odds.

 

[codeman00]

This thread seems to be running off into strategy more than buy in / rebuy amounts (even though I know they are related).

Our game is $0.25/$0.50 NL with a $40 initial buyin. Every subsequent rebuy seems to be anything $50 and below. I've seen people on their 3rd rebuy, just buy in for their last $12, for example. I never want to play with a short stack so when i get below $20, I rebuy for another $40...and usually by then, some at the table have well over $60 anyway...so it works well I think. Everyone just kind of abides by this $40 buy in rule and I know it would be frowned upon by the host to buy in for $40 when I still have $38.

I think the host wants to keep the game semi-friendly and not get crazy with people buying in for $200. Since the game lasts 7 hrs, the $40 buy in rule seems to keep this game at a max $700-$800 total bank. I'm not sure if that is by design, but that's what it does. And I'm not sure if that is good or bad.

Now that I'm starting to host a game with those players combined with another group, I have adopted the same buyin rules. A couple of different players really got the betting going early in my first cash game with $7 preflop raises instead of $3 which pushed the bank to almost $1000. We kept with the $40 rebuy and even though one person on a heater had almost $300, no one seemed to complain about the $40 rebuy rule. They complained about the guy winning every hand and how big his stack was but no one blamed the $40 buy-in.

Since I'm hosting a game myself, I'm just trying to figure out the best rules for our group (and my game. Tagging along here and looking for suggestions myself.

 

[v1pe]

Personally, for anything I host I'm planning to keep the buy in at around 100BB. I'll allow 200BB for 10NL because most people bring a 20 and I like that the game plays bigger with the larger stacks.

When we move up to .10/.25 or .25/.25 I'll make it $10 - $25 buy in.

I like a range because I have players who don't ever want to spend more than $10 at a time. Even though some of these guys will rebuy 4-5 times thru the night...

 

[upNdown]

This thread seems to be running off into strategy more than buy in / rebuy amounts (even though I know they are related).

Our game is $0.25/$0.50 NL with a $40 initial buyin. Every subsequent rebuy seems to be anything $50 and below. I've seen people on their 3rd rebuy, just buy in for their last $12, for example. I never want to play with a short stack so when i get below $20, I rebuy for another $40...and usually by then, some at the table have well over $60 anyway...so it works well I think. Everyone just kind of abides by this $40 buy in rule and I know it would be frowned upon by the host to buy in for $40 when I still have $38.

I think the host wants to keep the game semi-friendly and not get crazy with people buying in for $200. Since the game lasts 7 hrs, the $40 buy in rule seems to keep this game at a max $700-$800 total bank. I'm not sure if that is by design, but that's what it does. And I'm not sure if that is good or bad.

Now that I'm starting to host a game with those players combined with another group, I have adopted the same buyin rules. A couple of different players really got the betting going early in my first cash game with $7 preflop raises instead of $3 which pushed the bank to almost $1000. We kept with the $40 rebuy and even though one person on a heater had almost $300, no one seemed to complain about the $40 rebuy rule. They complained about the guy winning every hand and how big his stack was but no one blamed the $40 buy-in.

Since I'm hosting a game myself, I'm just trying to figure out the best rules for our group (and my game. Tagging along here and looking for suggestions myself.

I wouldn't like it. If one guy's got almost $300, I'd want to rebuy (or add-on) for a lot more than $40. If I was held to the $40 re-buy rule and I got pocket aces and the guy with the big stack had a good hand too, I'd be pretty displeased with the rules.

 

[Old State]

http://www.pokeratlas.com/poker-cash-game/borgata-atlantic-city-no-limit-holdem-1-2

http://www.pokeratlas.com/poker-cash-game/bellagio-las-vegas-no-limit-holdem-1-3

I'd model after these and scale down if needed

 

[Frogzilla]

You’re missing the point... the guy with $30 has little to NO power to capitalize on timed strategic betting (bluffing). Hard to bluff a monster stack. Also when the $30 stack gets a monster hand, they’re only making $30...

And since you’re essentially playing for stacks every hand, it narrows your range.

I'm of the opinion that the short stack has a small advantage in cash when there are multiple players in. The other players naturally optimize their play for the big money, the side pot, which leaves room for the small stack to exploit.

At least that's what I tell myself when I'm down big. "You got em right where u want em Froggy" etc

Edit: I didn't realize there was a page two and that all I was saying was already said. I'm new here and I'm sorry

 

[Rhodeman77]

I'm of the opinion that the short stack has a small advantage in cash when there are multiple players in. The other players naturally optimize their play for the big money, the side pot, which leaves room for the small stack to exploit.

At least that's what I tell myself when I'm down big. "You got em right where u want em Froggy" etc

Edit: I didn't realize there was a page two and that all I was saying was already said. I'm new here and I'm sorry

No need to apologize. Welcome to the site.

 

[AWenger]

http://www.pokeratlas.com/poker-cash-game/borgata-atlantic-city-no-limit-holdem-1-2
http://www.pokeratlas.com/poker-cash-game/bellagio-las-vegas-no-limit-holdem-1-3
I'd model after these and scale down if needed

There will be different preferences for different player pools, so what works for one game is not one-size fit all. For games where players like a lot of action, I'd model after these and scale up.

For the casinos around DC & Baltimore, the casinos do a good job of listing the min & max buy-ins on Bravo Poker. Here's what they show:
Maryland Live 1-2 NLH (100-300)
Horseshoe Baltimore 1-3 NLH (100-300)
MGM National Harbor 1-3 NLH (100-500)

As some prior posters noted, some home games have a rule of buy-in to $xxx or up to the big stack, whatever's greater, or up to 1/2 the big stack, etc.

I once played in a game that was basically a hybrid of these, where for the first 2 or 3 hours, max buy-in was the set limit (i.e. $300, in the 1/2 example above), but after a set time, players could buy in up to the big stack. That game had a few shorter stacked players that would sometimes leave early, and also had a few big action players who came later and who bought in for the max. It was a good mix of normal sized pots early on, and then later, had the chance of huge action and much bigger pots, depending on who played and rebought. I usually bought in shorter, but I would never complain if a really big stack tried to 'bully' me.

 

[Old State]

There will be different preferences for different player pools, so what works for one game is not one-size fit all. For games where players like a lot of action, I'd model after these and scale up.

I meant to scale according to the blinds. If the standard casino max buy in for $1/2nl is $300 then scale down to $75 for $.25/.50.

I honestly think 100 big blinds is a better max but 150 would be the most.

All these crazy rebuy rules are confusing and not needed. Over complication. Again, I differ to the casinos. The casino industry has figured this and other standards out over the last 75+years. There is a lot if thought put into it....and that goes for things like dealing with mis deals, boxed cards, etc as well.

 

[AWenger]

Again, I differ to the casinos. The casino industry has figured this and other standards out over the last 75+years. There is a lot if thought put into it..

A casino's goals are to keep players sitting at the table, collecting rake. Not necessarily providing the most fun or most action, or what players want, but on the other hand, if games aren't what people want, they'll stop coming to the casinos, so they do have to cater to the players somewhat.

What works best for one home game may be completely different, but to each his own.

I meant to scale according to the blinds. If the standard casino max buy in for $1/2nl is $300 then scale down to $75 for $.25/.50.

Perfect. When I used to host 25c/50c, we did $40 buy in, but it ended up being a little short stacked play. Increasing that to $75 or $80 (to keep intervals for $20 cash bills) is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Old State]

A casino's goals are to keep players sitting at the table, collecting rake. Not necessarily providing the most fun or most action, or what players want, but on the other hand, if games aren't what people want, they'll stop coming to the casinos, so they do have to cater to the players somewhat.

.

Not sure you can connect the dots there. They cater to the players 100%. The casinos keep people coming and staying by spreading a fair game with standardized rules that attracts players. It has to be worth the rake. If allowing $500 buyins for $1/2nl would attract more players they would do it.

 

[codeman00]

I wouldn't like it. If one guy's got almost $300, I'd want to rebuy (or add-on) for a lot more than $40. If I was held to the $40 re-buy rule and I got pocket aces and the guy with the big stack had a good hand too, I'd be pretty displeased with the rules.

I completely understand your frustration but this situation happens at casinos too. If you were to go to a casino poker room and sit down at the $1/$3 table with your max buy in of $300 and a one player has $1500, I'm sure you would be upset too but you're probably not going to leave. Or maybe you will, I don't know? But you're not going to be able to talk the casino into raising their buy in limits because other players have put in the time and have a large stack. I know the $40/$300 isn't exactly the same ratio as $300/$1500 but still you are in a similar situation.

Our game starts with everyone buying in for $40 and it lasts about 7 hours. Rarely does some one get to the $300 level...but it happens on a rare occasion. If I raise the buy in to $80 then who's to say that someone isn't going t be upset when someone has $600 on the table and someone can only rebuy for $80? I guess that's where the rule of being able to buy up to the largest stack on the table... (which I hadn't heard of until I read this thread). the $80 buy in limit just makes a larger game. I can just see a home game getting out of hand in more ways than one by having a floating buy in limit.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's why I'm here...to read other opinions and thoughts.

 

[detroitdad]

I wouldn't like it. If one guy's got almost $300, I'd want to rebuy (or add-on) for a lot more than $40. If I was held to the $40 re-buy rule and I got pocket aces and the guy with the big stack had a good hand too, I'd be pretty displeased with the rules.

I've not bought, or rebought into a cash game with this rule. A player had 300+ and the max buy in rule was 60 bucks. That goes against how I like to play so I opted out. The rebuy rules have evolved at my game that you are allowed to rebuy for either the max buy in, which is 100, or half the deep stack. Honestly, there are only a few of us that take advantage of the 50% rule. Most only rebuy at 100, which is plenty for our game.

Sometimes the only way I can get chips in front of me is to buy in for half the deep stack lol. I know........."Play Better", but I'm at my peak abilities

 

[codeman00]

So I'm curious....in home games, what does your chip level need to be to "add on" in a cash game.? Let's say your game is $100 buy in. Player A loses $5 in the first hand, do you let him buy in for another $100 more before Hand #2? Or does Player A have to lose half or a percentage of his stack before "adding on"?

The reason I ask is in my $40 buy-in game if we were in Hour #4 and there were a couple of people with $100+ and some of the shorter stacks at $45 wanted to "add on" another $40, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it. If someone took this to the extent of buying in $40 for 4 consecutive hands so they could artificially amass $205, then that would be an issue and I would call them out on it. If the person had $20 and he wanted another $40, then that's definitely not an issue. So I'm actually letting people buy in for $40 but they could rebuy to a larger amount... Hmmm...Maybe I need a more defined rule now that I'm hosting more?

I think the casino rule is you can top off to the max buy in limit....however, I'm not going to let someone lose $8 and then let them buy in for $8 more because I'd have to make change, etc. I'd much rather people buy in for a larger and even amount like $10/$20/$30/$40.

 

[detroitdad]

So I'm curious....in home games, what does your chip level need to be to "add on" in a cash game.? Let's say your game is $100 buy in. Player A loses $5 in the first hand, do you let him buy in for another $100 more before Hand #2? Or does Player A have to lose half or a percentage of his stack before "adding on"?

The player would only be able to add on five bucks to get back to 100. Max buy in is 100 or half the deep stack. This goes for Add on's as well.

 

[Old State]

I completely understand your frustration but this situation happens at casinos too. If you were to go to a casino poker room and sit down at the $1/$3 table with your max buy in of $300 and a one player has $1500, I'm sure you would be upset too but you're probably not going to leave. Or maybe you will, I don't know? But you're not going to be able to talk the casino into raising their buy in limits because other players have put in the time and have a large stack. I know the $40/$300 isn't exactly the same ratio as $300/$1500 but still you are in a similar situation.

Our game starts with everyone buying in for $40 and it lasts about 7 hours. Rarely does some one get to the $300 level...but it happens on a rare occasion. If I raise the buy in to $80 then who's to say that someone isn't going t be upset when someone has $600 on the table and someone can only rebuy for $80? I guess that's where the rule of being able to buy up to the largest stack on the table... (which I hadn't heard of until I read this thread). the $80 buy in limit just makes a larger game. I can just see a home game getting out of hand in more ways than one by having a floating buy in limit.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's why I'm here...to read other opinions and thoughts.

Your not wrong...your right. These rules were put into place from the experience of running poker games 24/7 365 for decades. In that time every possible scenario has played out and been considered.

What if you have a guy at a $300 max table who was playing for several hours and now has $1200. Very common occurance. Under some of these home game rules you any player could buy in for $600 to $1200. Say 3 decide to do that. Now what if one person doubles up with AA against KK. They could now have $2400. A new player sits down and could buy in for up to $2400 under some of this home game logic. Now you have $2/5 or $5/10 size buyins at a $1/2 game. When does it stop?

Scale this down to a $.25/.50 game. I have numerous poker friends who would bring $500 to that game thinking they may eventually get that in play while seeing flops for $.50 or $1.50 and then getting a few hundred in the pot if the cards fall right.

It never ceases to amaze me at the randomness of house rules at home poker games. I'm not sure how well some have been thought out.