Cash Game Partial Cash-Out (a.k.a. Rebuying from the Deep Stack Player) (3 Viewers)

[Poker Zombie]

Let's flip your "if everybody did it" around: instead of everybody pocketing their profit, what if everyone topped back up to the max after each hand? Buy in for $50, lose $10, put $10 back on the table. Players would accumulate enormous stacks that you would never allow them to start the night with. I think that's what makes this a more convincing case for me. If something is bad for the game in one situation, it's highly suspicious in the others too.

I recognize that I'm being difficult, and it's not because I'm trying to convince anyone or even change how I play in my own home game (yet). If me persisting is too irritating, I'll drop it. But I really want to understand the "why" and not just "we've always done it this way". If I can't teach it, then I don't truly understand it.

Technically, anybody with less than a starting stack (or less than maximum) can add back on. I occasionally see it from the short-stack-jockeys in casinos. Buy in for the minimum. Play "preflop poker", getting their stack in before they have to make post-flop decision. If they lose, add back on.

Yes, this can become "higher staked" poker. But a 25¢-50¢ game can play like a $2-$5 game with the right (or wrong) players. The way for a host to manage players that want to play bigger is to limit rebuys ($50 max), or rule a maximum bet limit (max bet allowed: $50 per hand). Some states have a maximum bet law, so this isn't too crazy.

You certainly aren't being irritating. You appear to have your player's bankroll preservation in mind, which is great for "beginner" games. I used to cap cash-game buy-in/rebuys to a total stack of $20. Once my players were more comfortable, I allowed $20 or half the biggest stack (today it's $30 or 1/2 the big stack). Sure, one guy could try to run up our small game into something bigger, and roughly 1/3 of our players (myself included) would be cool with that. However, 2/3 of my players view poker as a social event and a night out. We try to keep losses to about the cost of a dinner and a movie ($60 per person).

 

[merkong]

In this case, IT'S YOU!!!!!! #HiNeighbor

I have purpose. And hello neighbor!!

Probably about time you swing by but the road… ugh.

 

[Baxit]

[...] What I'm having a harder time digesting is the situation where total chip count remains the same (buying from another player).

There was this scene in Rounders when the always-broke Worm sat close to his friend at a casino table and said something like : "ok, pass me some chips so we can bust these tourists". I wouldn't like that in my home game, same for in-game staking which is pure collusion.

 

[Taghkanic]

... what if everyone topped back up to the max after each hand? Buy in for $50, lose $10, put $10 back on the table.

This is allowed in every casino and private game I have ever played in. It is good for the game, and also only fair: You shouldn't have to bust in order to get back to a max allowed stack in a no-limit hold ’em game. If players are stuck, they have the option to top back off at any time. This is to make it more possible for people to win their money back, and also in keeping with the appeal and spirit of no limit.

Otherwise, if you run into a cooler early in a game, but were not allowed to top back up unless you busted and fully rebought, that would mean you had to play at a disadvantage far beyond the one cooler.

Players would accumulate enormous stacks that you would never allow them to start the night with. I think that's what makes this a more convincing case for me. If something is bad for the game in one situation, it's highly suspicious in the others too.

I would allow it, and I do. And so does every other professionally-run home, private or casino game I have ever played in.

I recognize that I'm being difficult, and it's not because I'm trying to convince anyone or even change how I play in my own home game (yet). If me persisting is too irritating, I'll drop it. But I really want to understand the "why" and not just "we've always done it this way". If I can't teach it, then I don't truly understand it.

TBH, it sounds a lot to me like the way I might have thought about things when my poker experience was limited to the first home game I ever played in. Which was a rinky-dink affair, with a variety of weird house rules and group customs... which I eventually learned were not only not at all standard, but in fact considered wildly inappropriate by 98% of poker players.

So it is understandable. But you’re just way off here.

 

[JMC9389]

Missed this thread when it first came about. This wouldn't fly with me.

Money goes to the banker, the person giving the money gets chips from the bank in return. If the bank runs out of chips, cash on the table plays.

 

[Tarsus4]

I would allow it, and I do. And so does every other professionally-run home, private or casino game I have ever played in.

I'm referring to the max buy-in, which in part defines the stakes of the table. It sounds like a lot of people here are advocating for there being no limits on buy-ins, which is... one way to go. We're seeing a lot more "match the stacks" rooms which lets the stakes climb quickly but at least lets players play at a level field. I've even seen an unlimited room (MGM Grand, I stayed there last year) but I wouldn't say that's where I'd prefer to play.

I like @Poker Zombie 's suggestion for limiting the chips on the table by limiting rebuys. That's how I think I'd prefer to handle it at the moment. I was tossing an idea around in my head of a table maximum chip count after which players have to rebuy from each other, but I don't think I like that either.

 

[TheYeti]

It sounds like a lot of people here are advocating for there being no limits on buy-ins, which is... one way to go.

I don't think anyone here is advocating for uncapped buy-ins just that you can re-buy up to the max buy-in at any time.

At my game I allow players to re-buy up to the max buy-in ($100) at any time, but if your stack is under $50 you can re-buy up to $150. This seems to strike a good balance between the players who want to play smaller and those who want to play bigger.

 

[JustinInMN]

I have purpose. And hello neighbor!!

Probably about time you swing by but the road… ugh.

Our neighborhood is in bad shape construction wise as well