Cash Game New to this (1 Viewer)

[detroitdad]

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.

Probably because every home game plays a little bit differently. As a host, I'm putting rules in place so that it increases my enjoyment of the game while at the same time tweaking them as needed to fit my group as a whole. These are home games, not casinos. The home game isn't running 24/7/365. its running once a month, in 7 hour spurts.

I use half the deep stack rule and it works. This might not work at another game so that host would have to recognize that and adjust his rules accordingly.

As long as everyone knows the rebuy rules prior to the game, then there shouldn't be any problems. If they don't like it, they don't have to play.

 

[Trihonda]

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.

While technically allowed at any point in a cash game, generally, I would discourage my players from losing a couple dollars then reloading to the max every hand. I have not seen this at my house, but have seen it at other games were people are constantly reloading and making the host issue out small amounts of chips just so the player can have the absolute max at the start of the next hand.

One way to inhibit this would be to have a rule where add on’s (reloads) must be a minimum of $20. This accomplishes two things, $20 is easy to hand out in chips, and it eliminates the person who lost five dollars (of a $200 stack) and wants to reload. Simply adjust this minimum reload amount based on the stakes.

 

[detroitdad]

While technically allowed at any point in a cash game, generally, I would discourage my players from losing a couple dollars then reloading to the max every hand. I have not seen this at my house Carmel but have seen it at other games were people are constantly reloading and making the host issue out small amounts of chips just sold the player can have the absolute max at the start of the next hand.

One way to inhibit this would be to have a rule where add on’s (reloads) must be a minimum of $20. This accomplishes two things, $20 is easy to hand out in chips, andIt eliminates the person who lost five dollars and wants to reload. Simply adjust this minimum reload amount based on the steaks.

Its not an issue at my game. If someone lost 8 bucks, 13 bucks, ect.....I would allow it. Puts more money on the table. My chip bank is always close to me so it wouldn't be a problem to grab them a few more chips. Plus it would give me a solid reason to refill my bourbon glass

 

[AWenger]

the $80 buy in limit just makes a larger game.

some of the shorter stacks at $45 wanted to "add on" another $40, I probably wouldn't have a problem with it

If adding $40 to a stack causes a player to go $5 over the buy-in limit, I'd have no problem with allowing it, but if I was hosting, I'd first check with the entire table, announce Player X wants to rebuy for $40, but it's slightly above the cap, and if anyone objects, then they just add on $35 to the max of $80. But I'd also make sure the player isn't just trying to have their next add-on creep up to $10 over, $15 over, etc.

I can just see a home game getting out of hand in more ways than one by having a floating buy in limit.

Yes! That's more of a feature, not a flaw, of the 'buy in up to big stack' rule. Some hosts & players like playing poker in bigger pots, more action. It's not for everyone or every group though. When I was younger and just learning poker, I wouldn't have felt comfortable playing in bigger stakes/bigger buy-in games. I would recommend that a host and players play within their budgets for casual entertainment.

Your not wrong...your right.

There are options for people to consider, none of them are right or wrong. The options listed above include:

1. same max buy-in all night
2. buy-in up to the max or the 1/2 the big stack, whichever is more
3. buy-in up to the max or the big stack, whichever is more
4. play first X hours with max buy-in; after that, allow up to the big stack (or 1/2 the big stack)
5. uncapped

Regardless of the option, it's important for the host to have announced rules ahead of time, so there are no surprises for the players. If players would like slightly different buy-in rules, or the size ($$) of the game, the host can always tweak the rules for the next game (or maybe even that game, if the entire table agrees).

 

[Old State]

In my opinion too many "options". I have deferred to casino rules and structure because they are the most logical and well thought out AND because I have many casino players in my group and it's what they expect. They would be quit to mock and point out all the flaws of any customized structure.

Most poker players these days have only been exposed to poker on TV and home games. This is fine but structure is rarely discussed on TV and most home games don't bother to research structure. They simply make it up on the fly. If players just want to play they will agree to anything especially if the stakes are very low.

I've been invited to neighborhood games when they allow perpetual rebuys in their tourney play and have blinds that never allow color ups. The cash games are $20 buy ins and you get $1000 in chips then they try to cash you out based on that scale(n) :thumbsdown:

Anyway I play and don't complain because I simply want to get my poker fix in and they are really nice guys. What I do find is that when new players come into my place to play they often compliment the structure and have many times adopted it themselves.

These are very low stakes games. If we were playing for hundreds of dollars I would kindly ask they reconsider.

 

[codeman00]

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.

Exactly what I was thinking. With some of my players, I can see them getting frustrated that the game is all of a sudden playing way too big...not to mention the game safety, etc. I can definitely see that home games need to have rules that work for the players playing and it's okay to differ them a bit from a casino.

 

[Old State]

Exactly what I was thinking. With some of my players, I can see them getting frustrated that the game is all of a sudden playing way too big...not to mention the game safety, etc. I can definitely see that home games need to have rules that work for the players playing and it's okay to differ them a bit from a casino.

Hey...too each their own. It's a free country as they say.

The OP was however asking for a starting point and has never spread a cash game before. Hence my advise not to over complicate things and adopt the industry standard. If, after trying this a few times they want to change, by all means make an adjustment. In my experience however, those who start with industry standard casino type structure usually end up preferring it and keeping it that way in the long run.

 

[codeman00]

Thanks for all of the options, everyone....I'll be referring back to this thread in the future.

For our game, I think I'm going to go with the $40 buy in and a rebuy of up to $40 when you reach $20 or less in your stack. That will keep people from topping off for small amounts but will also allow for anyone to have $60ish effective anytime during the night which will be helpful later when stacks are larger. Now I have a rule that I can announce to the group. I'll revisit it if anyone complains or if any comments are made.

 

[chipjoker]

Your players may never have this issue. But it is a good idea to have rules prior to the game, and if there is a situation, then you deal with that. I do a .25/.50 game with 40-100 buy in and most buy in with 100, a few buy-in with 40 and reload later with 40-60 each time and its not bad at all.


Good luck, have fun..

 

[upNdown]

Thanks for all of the options, everyone....I'll be referring back to this thread in the future.

For our game, I think I'm going to go with the $40 buy in and a rebuy of up to $40 when you reach $20 or less in your stack. That will keep people from topping off for small amounts but will also allow for anyone to have $60ish effective anytime during the night which will be helpful later when stacks are larger. Now I have a rule that I can announce to the group. I'll revisit it if anyone complains or if any comments are made.

i don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I don’t know if anybody’s mentioned that $40 is only 80 big blinds, which most people would consider the bare minimum, if that, for decent play. Personally I’d consider raising the max buy-in or lowering the blinds. But this is coming from a guy who plays in a cash game where everybody usually buys in for 40 big blinds, initially, so I get that different things work for different crowds.

 

[Trihonda]

i don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I don’t know if anybody’s mentioned that $40 is only 80 big blinds, which most people would consider the bare minimum, if that, for decent play. Personally I’d consider raising the max buy-in or lowering the blinds. But this is coming from a guy who plays in a cash game where everybody usually buys in for 40 big blinds, initially, so I get that different things work for different crowds.

Each crowd is different. When I started out years ago, it was a $20 BI with my guys... when I got more serious into poker, I realized that playing so short is more about luck. Everyone flats $.50 ot $1 and sees a flop. There’s less poker going on here... we increased our BI to $60; which is 120 bbs. After a few rebuys, we increase to $80, then to $100. This works out well for my gang.

 

[codeman00]

i don’t want to beat a dead horse, but I don’t know if anybody’s mentioned that $40 is only 80 big blinds, which most people would consider the bare minimum, if that, for decent play. Personally I’d consider raising the max buy-in or lowering the blinds. But this is coming from a guy who plays in a cash game where everybody usually buys in for 40 big blinds, initially, so I get that different things work for different crowds.

Noted...and the input is appreciated. I'll keep an eye on this.

 

[mashoo]

One way to inhibit this would be to have a rule where add on’s (reloads) must be a minimum of $20. This accomplishes two things, $20 is easy to hand out in chips, and it eliminates the person who lost five dollars (of a $200 stack) and wants to reload. Simply adjust this minimum reload amount based on the stakes.

Just curious, have you ever sold extra chips to players to allow themselves to top up as they want? Even if they want to top up $5 at a time?

At casinos I've seen this and done it myself in $25 increments.

But I can see a home game denying that simply so hosts don't have players pocket their valuable chips and forget about them.

 

[detroitdad]

Just curious, have you ever sold extra chips to players to allow themselves to top up as they want? Even if they want to top up $5 at a time?

At casinos I've seen this and done it myself in $25 increments.

But I can see a home game denying that simply so hosts don't have players pocket their valuable chips and forget about them.

yes, and I've bought extra chips as well.

 

[Trihonda]

Just curious, have you ever sold extra chips to players to allow themselves to top up as they want? Even if they want to top up $5 at a time?

At casinos I've seen this and done it myself in $25 increments.

But I can see a home game denying that simply so hosts don't have players pocket their valuable chips and forget about them.

As I already stated, I’ve seen this at other games, but not really at my game. I think the smallest I can recall anyone topping off for is $10. Typically once someone gets down $40+ I’ll have them asking to reload. Many times, I’ll have people play down to very short stacks before asking to top off.

Since it doesn’t happen all that often at my game, I haven’t felt the need to enact a rule on it one way or another. I just let it play out. If someone really wanted $5, I’d top them off. If this started happening every few hands, I’d put the kabosh on it, ...that is all.

 

[codeman00]

As I already stated, I’ve seen this at other games, but not really at my game. I think the smallest I can recall anyone topping off for is $10. Typically once someone gets down $40+ I’ll have them asking to reload. Many times, I’ll have people play down to very short stacks before asking to top off.

Our game is very similar but with one difference. Everyone (except me) will allow their stack to get so short that their only move is an "all in" instead of topping off. Even some of the players that should know better still do this and I'm not sure why.

 

[Justin Olson]

Our game is very similar but with one difference. Everyone (except me) will allow their stack to get so short that their only move is an "all in" instead of topping off. Even some of the players that should know better still do this and I'm not sure why.

Its almost a tourney thought process...... I was down to $7 and built back up to $70. We have folks that are just proud to play with their initial buy-in

 

[Old State]

In my small stakes games with the neighbors no one ever tops off. They are used to small tourneys so I don't think they understand the concept.

For my regular $1/2NL guys they will usually buy another $100 when they fall below $100 with a $300 max buyin. May only happen 2-3 times in a night if that. Most go bust before they rebuy though because they would have got their entire stack in before that point and lost.

 

[RyGuy]

And here I thought my reply to an old thread wouldn't get much attention... 65 replies later... wow! Such lively conversation!

After reading what everyone has said -- same starting stacks vs. min/max, whether it's bullying or effective money all the same, what the rebuy amount should be, etc., I think we can agree that these are all valid points, but it really boils down to what you should do that's best for YOUR game, as I have for mine. Keep an open dialogue with the core members of your group. Keep as many of your players as happy as you can, and your game will be successful for years to come. Sure, it can take a few tries to get it right (as it did for me), but you're golden once the formula is in place.

 

[Mojo1312]

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.

Casinos aren't interested in providing lower stake players with a great game as they are in filling seats, which explains why they have a 30 to 50BB buy-in minimum.

 

[BigSlickTux]

Thanks for all the engaging conversation. I have a game scheduled for next Sunday so I can try it out.

 

[Mojo1312]

In my opinion too many "options". I have deferred to casino rules and structure because they are the most logical and well thought out AND because I have many casino players in my group and it's what they expect. They would be quit to mock and point out all the flaws of any customized structure.

Most poker players these days have only been exposed to poker on TV and home games. This is fine but structure is rarely discussed on TV and most home games don't bother to research structure. They simply make it up on the fly. If players just want to play they will agree to anything especially if the stakes are very low.

Utter nonsense. Casinos are in business to make a profit for the house. Absolutely ridiculous statement that hosts of home games should follow their example regarding structure. You accuse others of making random illogical decisions when establishing buy-ins and re-buys, which shows how blissfully unaware you are of their merits.

You speak authoritatively about structures, and how others don't bother to do any research. Really? Then explain to me why your nosebleed games have a minimum buy in of 250BB's. If you can't, maybe one of your casino friends can.

 

[Old State]

Utter nonsense. Casinos are in business to make a profit for the house. Absolutely ridiculous statement that hosts of home games should follow their example regarding structure. You accuse others of making random illogical decisions when establishing buy-ins and re-buys, which shows how blissfully unaware you are of their merits.

You speak authoritatively about structures, and how others don't bother to do any research. Really? Then explain to me why your nosebleed games have a minimum buy in of 250BB's. If you can't, maybe one of your casino friends can.

Hmmm these angry posts are usually trolls but...What the hell are you even talking about? Nosebleed games? I have a minimum buy in of 250 BBs? So $500 minimum for a $1/2 game? That's news to me.

Authoritative on structure? You do realize you can go on most casino websites and see their "structure".

I think you need to calm down and reread this thread more carefully.

Oh, and poker probably ranks near the bottom as far as "profits" for a casino. Some small casinos like one near me don't even have poker because their limited floor space is better used for table games or slots. Vegas made $11.1B in gaming revenue. Only $78M was from poker.

 

[Mojo1312]

Hmmm these angry posts are usually trolls but...What the hell are you even talking about? Nosebleed games? I have a minimum buy in of 250 BBs? So $500 minimum for a $1/2 game? That's news to me.

You misread my post. I wasn't speaking about your game. By nosebleed, I meant the $400/$800 games that Phil Ivey and other pros play in.

FWIW, I played regularly in a private $1/$2 game that had a 150BB minimum buy-in with players I met at the casino. I have yet to play at a table with an equal number of highly skilled players.

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.

It is in the financial interest of casinos to have low buy-in requirements. To suggest their 30BB to 150BB buy-in is thee optimal structure for cash games is nonsense.

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.

All these rules you find crazy and confusing proves you are out of your depth when it comes to deep stack poker.

Albeit, 30 to 100BB buy-ins comprise the bulk of home games, however, there are experienced and skilled players on this site who frequently play in deep-stack games, or in games that are formulated to allow for deep-stack play as the session progresses.

In short, Intermediate players who aspire to up their game visit this site seeking sound advice. Therefore, please refrain from speaking authoritatively on matters that are outside your field of experience.

 

[Old State]

You misread my post. I wasn't speaking about your game. By nosebleed, I meant the $400/$800 games that Phil Ivey and other pros play in.

FWIW, I played regularly in a private $1/$2 game that had a 150BB minimum buy-in with players I met at the casino. I have yet to play at a table with an equal number of skilled players.



It is in the financial interest of casinos to have low buy-in requirements. To suggest their 30BB to 150BB buy-in is thee optimal structure for cash games is nonsense.



All these rules you find crazy and confusing proves you are out of your depth when it comes to deep stack poker.

Albeit, 30 to 100BB buy-ins comprise the bulk of home games, however, there are experienced and skilled players on this site who frequently play in deep-stack games, or in games that are formulated to allow for deep-stack play as the session progresses.

In short, Intermediate players who aspire to up their game visit this site seeking sound advice. Therefore, please refrain from speaking authoritatively on matters that are outside your field of experience.

I think it's you that is out of depth on the context of this thread. Read the damn title. The only nonsense is coming from you with your deep stack and Phil Ivey $400-800 references. The OP was asking about small home CASH games.This thread was a nice conversation until you arrived. There is nothing I referred to that isn't an established standard for Casino CASH GAMES.

I never implied I was an authority on anything but I have spent 1000's of hours playing cash poker in NJ casinos and a few visits to Vegas. There is a certain way they do things. I prefer their way to what I see in many home games. The OP was asking for people's opinion and I gave mine. I was not really part of the stack size debate on strategy. I simply commented on max starting stacks for low limit CASH GAMES.

Reread the thread. You obviously didn't or have severe reading comprehension deficiencies. Actually I think you are trolling but ...

 

[Trihonda]

Please disregard mojo.

Without even commenting on the validity of the content of his or your posts, you are correct in that your OP says “I’m new”; so even if you WERE stating incorrect information, we try to be respectful of new members asking for feedback.

Carry on.

And welcome to the community.

 

[upNdown]

Please disregard mojo.

Without even commenting on the validity of the content of his or your posts, you are correct in that your OP says “I’m new”; so even if you WERE stating incorrect information, we try to be respectful of new members asking for feedback.

Carry on.

And welcome to the community.

Well but don’t disregard anything. We can continue a conversation without being disrespectful.
I believe mojo’s point is that cash games, home or casino, are better off with deep stacks (meaning buy-ins of 150+ big blinds) regardless of stakes. Athat casino’s don’t necessarily have the same interests as Mojo when setting their buy-in rules.
I believe old state’s point is that the lower buy-in requirements that casinos have, work fine for casino play, so that’s what he uses for home play.
Perdonally, I’m inclined to agree with Mojo that deeper stacks allow for better play, but I’m also inclined to agree with Old State that giving your guests the flexibility to buy in for lower amounts is generally appropriate.

 

[namsupak]

A lot of it has to do with the guests. We talk about these things occasionally as a group. For example we set our buy in based on what our players want. And if people want to play bigger/smaller then you should respect that. If you have half of a group that wants to play lower stakes and half higher then thats more difficult you kind of need to find out which game you want to play, its sometimes hard to find a middle ground.

 

[Old State]

A lot of it has to do with the guests. We talk about these things occasionally as a group. For example we set our buy in based on what our players want. And if people want to play bigger/smaller then you should respect that. If you have half of a group that wants to play lower stakes and half higher then thats more difficult you kind of need to find out which game you want to play, its sometimes hard to find a middle ground.

That's why it's best to have multiple games if you can...which is sometimes hard. My first home game was with people that played at casinos so the goal was to simply recreate the AC game closer to home and without a rake.

Fast forward 17 years and I'm finding myself playing a lot with the neighbors who don't like to risk more than $40 and who had only played tourney style...which I really don't like for a small social group. I started getting them into $.25-.50 cash games with most buying in for $20-30. Luckily they are starting to like cash as people don't bust out and leave or stand around waiting for another game.

The first group would buy in for as much as I would allow so I adopt the AC standard. For the neighbors I have to limit the buyin as to not intimidate some players.

In your scenario with a mixed group of players, adopting the casino industry standard helps mitigate any debate or arguments. Everyone know what to expect and your subjectivity as a host is removed.

As to the casinos financial interest in cash poker buyins....I think their interest is minimal as poker is an extremely small revenue generator.

 

[upNdown]

As to the casinos financial interest in cash poker buyins....I think their interest is minimal as poker is an extremely small revenue generator.

That’s the second time you’ve said that, but I don’t believe one thing follows the other. Do you seriously think they’re just featuring poker rooms as loss leaders? I don’t. Regardless of what percentage of their overall income the poker room generates, I think it’s safe to say that the casino is going to try to maximize its poker room revenue.