Cash Game Pros versus Downsides to $2/$4 Pot Limit (2 Viewers)

[Mojo1312]

For those unfamiliar, Hero plays cards at a private bowling club that is open from early September until mid-May. The weekly card game keeps evolving annually based on the cast of players and whomever chooses to act as host. This year, a board member took-over the game, changing the stakes to $5/$5 dealer's choice PLO or PLHE. Buy-ins were accepted in $100 increments. Players would predominantly buy in for $200 or $300. On a rare occasion, we would have a player re-buy in for $500 or the bare minimum.

Hero has decided to fill in the void this summer by hosting the game bi-monthly. He is considering tweaking the game by adding crazy pineapple to the mix, lowering the stakes to $2/?$4 and increasing the minimum buy-in to $200. Hero believes that by having the $1 chip as the workhorse for the blinds will loosen up the game. It also increases the stack depth.

Thoughts? (Calculating the pot is not a problem for our group.)

 

[JustinInMN]

For those unfamiliar, Hero plays cards at a private bowling club that is open from early September until mid-May. The weekly card game keeps evolving annually based on the cast of players and whomever chooses to act as host. This year, a board member took-over the game, changing the stakes to $5/$5 dealer's choice PLO or PLHE. Buy-ins were accepted in $100 increments. Players would predominantly buy in for $200 or $300. On a rare occasion, we would have a player re-buy in for $500 or the bare minimum.

Hero has decided to fill in the void this summer by hosting the game bi-monthly. He is considering tweaking the game by adding crazy pineapple to the mix, lowering the stakes to $2/?$4 and increasing the minimum buy-in to $200. Hero believes that by having the $1 chip as the workhorse for the blinds will loosen up the game. It also increases the stack depth.

Thoughts? (Calculating the pot is not a problem for our group.)

I probably would still consider the five the workhorse with 2-4 blinds. A pot sized preflop open would be to $14 (or $16 if you consider the small blind complete). I don't see players making bets around that sizing in all singles too often.

If we were talking fixed limit then by all means go with the single as the workhorse. But pot limit, fives still make more sense.

 

[acezag]

God, what a bizarre PLO setup by the board member - chooses a game and blinds designed for extemely deep games and stacks, and then couples it with short buys only. Why why why why?

The nice thing is such a frustrating PLO setup may get people into limit game just by looking sane in comparison. I think you can get away with a minimum rack buy-in at 2/4 - that was the standard back when I played 3/6. Half-kill or full-kill is always a popular option too, if a lot of your crew likes the action.

 

[JustinInMN]

God, what a bizarre PLO setup by the board member - chooses a game and blinds designed for extemely deep games and stacks, and then couples it with short buys only. Why why why why?

The nice thing is such a frustrating PLO setup may get people into limit game just by looking sane in comparison. I think you can get away with a minimum rack buy-in at 2/4 - that was the standard back when I played 3/6. Half-kill or full-kill is always a popular option too, if a lot of your crew likes the action.

I mean, that probably is the hidden point here. If we are limiting to 100 buy-in, I think the blinds should probably be 1-1. Which ties back into the main point where singles probably make some sense as the "early street" workhorse denomination.

 

[Mojo1312]

The difficulty is bridging the gap between what players have come to expect and the flaws in a $5/$5 pot-limit game where the typical buy-in is $200 or $300. Hero is taking over the reins until Labor Day, at which point the game will move back to the bowling alley.

All but one or two players in our group are good for $500 to $1000. The goal behind setting up the game so it plays deeper, is to influence players to take greater risks, which in turn may lead them to re-evaluate the amount they buy-in or re-buy into the game.

In short, Hero is taking over a weekly game for the summer that everyone has played in for the last 8 months. He would like to maintain the spirit of the game, but also make it more interesting. Hence the idea of adding CP to the mix and adjusting the blinds.

The question is how will the changes be received.

 

[JustinInMN]

This year, a board member took-over the game, changing the stakes to $5/$5 dealer's choice PLO or PLHE. Buy-ins were accepted in $100 increments. Players would predominantly buy in for $200 or $300.

I think I got confused on this a bit. I took "accepted in $100 increments" to mean that was a max buy-in, and most players got to $200-$300 through multiple buy-ins. But now I am gathering it just means buy-ins need to be at least $100 and in multiples of $100.

If that's the case then I think $100 is a fine minimum, is there any cap?

Hero has decided to fill in the void this summer by hosting the game bi-monthly. He is considering tweaking the game by adding crazy pineapple to the mix, lowering the stakes to $2/?$4 and increasing the minimum buy-in to $200. Hero believes that by having the $1 chip as the workhorse for the blinds will loosen up the game. It also increases the stack depth.

Okay to hyperfocus on this.

1) I love a good game of Pineapple !

2) I think 2-4 from 5-5 is a small decrease in the blinds from 5-5 really, and probably not one that would change the "workhorse" chip away from the five. The five is the workhorse chip in 1-2 and 1-3 NL games. I'm not sure if introducing singles that will mainly be used in blinds and first round limps will change the look of pots that dramatically, if that's the goal.

3) I would never buy into a big bet game like this for less than 100 x BB myself, so I don't know the mentality of those that would buy in for the minimum. Most minimums are 10-20 x BB so at 5-5, a minimum of $100 is appropriate. Based on our knowledge of the player pool, will raising the minimum price any players out that are good for action?

 

[Machine]

I wouldn't go to a steakhouse and order a vegan meal, so why would you add pineapple to the lineup? Add Drawmaha or Badacey. Progression, not regression.

 

[Mojo1312]

A couple of years ago, a player belonging to the weekly $1/$2 NLHE game pushed the host to increase the buy-in from $100 to $300 to $200 to $400.
Hero questioned whether the change would be good for the game. Within a month, half the table was buying in for the $400 max and the other half for $300. Before, one or two players would buy-in for $200 and the rest of the table would buy-in for $300. Players were also allowed to re-buy back in for $500 from the beginning instead of at the half-way point at 9PM.

The dynamics changed. Players exercised a greater amount of caution and became more attentive. The overall quality of play at the table improved as a result.

The buy-ins to the $5/$5 dealer's choice PLO / PLHE game is 40 or 60 BB's. We had three young hold-em players join us this year. Two of the three are still gun shy when it comes to playing Omaha. Consequently, more hands of hold-em are being dealt, which is fine, except a pot size raise in late position will often get through if not abused.

Hero has tried unsuccessfully for years to warm the other players to crazy pineapple. As far as they are concerned, CP is a circus game. The numbers have finally shifted. A couple of the new players have expressed an interest in adding CP to the format.

Hero's idea is to eliminate the dealer's choice format in favor of playing a hand of each game in sequential order - Hold-em, then CP, followed by Omaha-Hi. Repeat. This rotation should make the game more entertaining.

The purpose behind the small step down in blinds so that four chips are being used to cover the big blind instead of one is to make the pot appear more voluminous., while also increasing the stack depths by 25%.

We had a problem filling seats this year with the new structure. The game would not have been viable without the addition of the three new younger players. For the first time at the bowling alley, we had two tables running different stakes, with eight or nine players at our table and six or seven players at the $1/$2 pot-limit table. (Run by the treasurer.) Half the time our game would break up early, lasting four to four and half hours. (Arriving home between quarter past ten and quarter to eleven after an evening of cards was new. Hero kind of felt like he had been out for dinner and drinks with friends.)

Hero enjoys playing pot-limit. The aim to these tweaks is to help ensure the longevity of the game.

 

[Timmah]

We play 2/4 limit in one of our cash games. The buy in is usually $100 per person, but isn’t capped, and rebuys at anytime. Tonight we were 10 handed. Everyone got a rack of NVC that were used as $1s. I purposely made my limit set with NVC chips so that if stakes change, the same chips can be used. Rebuys receive a barrel of $5s and they usually buy $1s off a big stack. I prefer $1s to be the work horse. No worrying about making a lot of change and it makes for a splashy game. Tonight I was in for $100 and out for $420.

 

[Mojo1312]

Small revisions can make a considerable difference to how a game plays. Hero remembers when the group tried to get him to rejoin the game after he gave up the responsibilities of hosting after 12 months because no one else wanted to share the duties with him. In the meantime, they had changed the format from dealer's choice $1/$1 NLHE or PLO to $6/$12 Fixed Limit.

Hero, who had only played no-limit hold-em or crazy pineapple and PLO, did not enjoy playing $6/$12 FL. He quickly kicked the game to the curb. Other players also disappeared. Hero was contacted again about supporting the game. Hero maintained that he was only interested if they raised the stakes to $8/$16. That one change made all the difference. The game thrived afterwards.

 

[JustinInMN]

Hero's idea is to eliminate the dealer's choice format in favor of playing a hand of each game in sequential order - Hold-em, then CP, followed by Omaha-Hi. Repeat. This rotation should make the game more entertaining.

I would tweak this to an orbit of each. Changing every hand is really disruptive and leads to very frequent "what game is this" questions.

Granted you will always have some of that in every mixed game. But it would be a far more significant issue changing games every hand.

he purpose behind the small step down in blinds so that four chips are being used to cover the big blind instead of one is to make the pot appear more voluminous., while also increasing the stack depths by 25%.

This may work as desired on the first round before someone puts in a raise, but once that first raise goes in, I think in practice, you will see mainly five dollar chips.

That said maybe you will see fewer twenty-five dollar chips in pots with the decrease which will help with this compared to the 5-5 game.

The issue with big bet forms of poker and getting players to gambol is that the players understand 3 buy ins a night is pretty normal. (And moreso in a game with relatively low maximums compared to the blinds.)

Players will nit it up if they get "hurt" too easily by losing an all in moreso than from the number of chips in a pot.

Lowering the blinds a bit does help a bit in this regard.

But maybe getting an honest assessment of the acceptable nightly loss for each player and dividing by 3 to determine the max buy in and blinds will help ensure the health of the game.

 

[Machine]

I would tweak this to an orbit of each. Changing every hand is really disruptive and leads to very frequent "what game is this" questions.

2nded - You're more likely to keep ppl if you play around of each.

Crazy Pinnapple is an introduction to a new game mechanic that is designed to transition you from NLH to PLO. You're already there. I would look to introduce another game mechanic. Drawamaha introduces the other half of discarding: the draw phase. I would introduce the game as NLH/PLO/X, with new games introduced over time; start with Pineapple for the first few weeks. And then try Drawamaha, it should keep it diverse enough to hold interest. From what I've seen, Pinnapple is meh for most people. While it can be interesting when starting out with circus games, it quickly loses its appeal.

For the record, I much prefer smaller blinds for it's inclusion, no need to have nose-bleed stakes.

 

[Mojo1312]

God, what a bizarre PLO setup by the board member - chooses a game and blinds designed for extemely deep games and stacks, and then couples it with short buys only. Why why why why?

The smaller $1/$2 table was half pot. (Ugh.)

There exists two problems within the group. One, the size of the stakes is more important than the depth of the game. It always has been that way. The majority of players would buy-in for 15 bigs when we played $10/$20 Fixed-limit.

Second, members with the greatest seniority have the greatest say.

Crazy Pinnapple is an introduction to a new game mechanic that is designed to transition you from NLH to PLO. You're already there. I would look to introduce another game mechanic. Drawamaha introduces the other half of discarding: the draw phase. I would introduce the game as NLH/PLO/X, with new games introduced over time; start with Pineapple for the first few weeks. And then try Drawamaha, it should keep it diverse enough to hold interest. From what I've seen, Pinnapple is meh for most people. While it can be interesting when starting out with circus games, it quickly loses its appeal.

Drawmaha quickly fizzled out after Hero introduced it to the group shortly after joining. To Hero's disappointment, so did 7 card stud. The players only seem interested in fast paced, easy to follow games. Big-O would naturally be the next evolution, but the way in which some of these players play, half are at risk of going the way of the dinosaurs trying to adapt.

I think I got confused on this a bit. I took "accepted in $100 increments" to mean that was a max buy-in, and most players got to $200-$300 through multiple buy-ins. But now I am gathering it just means buy-ins need to be at least $100 and in multiples of $100.

If that's the case then I think $100 is a fine minimum, is there any cap?

Although no one buys-in for less than two, one player is known for re-buying in for $100 at a time. He is the only outlier. On the opposing side, we have had players re-buy in for as much as $500.

Hero thought he had this hammered out, but upon reflection, the proposed changes are nothing more than a band aid. 60% of the time we only had eight players for the evening and there is the pattern of the game breaking an hour or two early. Little any one of us could do this season. We were handcuffed, since it was a board member who took over the game. Ironically, he only showed up to play about 2/3 of the time.

Hero is going to go with $3/$3 blinds. $200 minimum buy-in, $500 cap. Hopefully, players will advocate for keeping these changes in place when the game returns to the bowling alley after Labor Day.

 

[acezag]

The smaller $1/$2 table was half pot. (Ugh.)

There exists two problems within the group. One, the size of the stakes is more important than the depth of the game. It always has been that way. The majority of players would buy-in for 15 bigs when we played $10/$20 Fixed-limit.

Second, members with the greatest seniority have the greatest say.



Drawmaha quickly fizzled out after Hero introduced it to the group shortly after joining. To Hero's disappointment, so did 7 card stud. The players only seem interested in fast paced, easy to follow games. Big-O would naturally be the next evolution, but the way in which some of these players play, half are at risk of going the way of the dinosaurs trying to adapt.



Although no one buys-in for less than two, one player is known for re-buying in for $100 at a time. He is the only outlier. On the opposing side, we have had players re-buy in for as much as $500.

Hero thought he had this hammered out, but upon reflection, the proposed changes are nothing more than a band aid. 60% of the time we only had eight players for the evening and there is the pattern of the game breaking an hour or two early. Little any one of us could do this season. We were handcuffed, since it was a board member who took over the game. Ironically, he only showed up to play about 2/3 of the time.

Hero is going to go with $3/$3 blinds. $200 minimum buy-in, $500 cap. Hopefully, players will advocate for keeping these changes in place when the game returns to the bowling alley after Labor Day.

Just a thought (and probably obvious to you), but $1/$1 plays plenty big for PLO for those buy-ins. You want people able and willing to buy in at least somewhat deep from the beginning. Remedying should be a priority for the health of the game, IMO.

You want effective stacks where it makes sense mathematically to take advantage of the game's structural differences from Hold'em. If everyone's playing scared money / short stacks, they're never going to experience those, and the game will struggle.

 

[Mojo1312]

We held our first game tonight under the new structure. Not what Hero expected. $3/$3 blinds, one orbit of Hold-em, followed by and orbit of Crazy Pineapple, then Omaha-hi. $200 to $500 buy-in. $100 minimum add-on.

We had eight players. Buy-ins were all over the place. Three players in for two. Two bought in for three and the remaining three players bought in for $400. Four won between $150 and $340. One player lost $700 chasing his losses with draws that never came. Hero won $230 for the night.

The game was super mundane. The session lasted five and a half hours. Hero was bored for the last two. Hero had more fun playing $10/$20 fixed limit.

On the upside: Hero finally got his way of playing CP after seven long years. Credit goes to the three young players who joined our ranks this year. They were more open minded to playing something new.

A couple players remarked how they liked the lower blinds. The money in the bank at the end of the night didn't change from when the blinds were $5/$5.
The only difference is the game didn't break-up early as was sometimes the case .

Hero is not a fan of the current structure. We will see how the next game goes.

 

[Machine]

A couple players remarked how they liked the lower blinds. The money in the bank at the end of the night didn't change from when the blinds were $5/$5.
The only difference is the game didn't break-up early as was sometimes the case .

So most games (PLO) in my area are 5/5, but the thing is, people keep pushing the stakes for no reason. We get thousands on the table with .5/.5 and you get a ton of gamble for it. People like action; give them some room to make action without pushing in 5000.

What specifically don't you like about the structure? The Blinds? Depending on the crowd, I like 3/3 because it ensures the game progresses through the blinds quickly.

 

[JustinInMN]

The game was super mundane. The session lasted five and a half hours. Hero was bored for the last two. Hero had more fun playing $10/$20 fixed limit

ero is not a fan of the current structure. We will see how the next game goes.

I am definitely curious, what was mundane? Just not a lot of action? Is is something you can attribute to the structure or is it a player pool thing?

I do tend to agree, I like limit better than no limit from a speed standpoint. is that something the group is at all interested in? 8/16 and 10/20 would definitely be good limit stakes for a similar amount of risk.

 

[suchj0sh]

I think 10/20 fixed limit would be the stake required to satisfy some players that are accustomed to 5-5 PLO, but it doesn’t seem fixed limit is on the table really.

I don’t think you can make the $1 chip the workhorse in any NL or PL game that isn’t using fracs for blinds. If the $1 is the workhorse in a 2/4 PLO game, that’s probably a nit fest.

That said, lowering the blinds in this game is obviously the way. Maybe like 1-2-5 PLO or something with these buy-in sizes.

 

[Mojo1312]

I am definitely curious, what was mundane? Just not a lot of action? Is is something you can attribute to the structure or is it a player pool thing?

I do tend to agree, I like limit better than no limit from a speed standpoint. is that something the group is at all interested in? 8/16 and 10/20 would definitely be good limit stakes for a similar amount of risk.

Hero definitely saw an opening to add Crazy Pineapple to the mix this year by removing dealer's choice in favor of doing an orbit of each of the flop game variants. Hero doesn't see how anyone at the bowling alley can conclude that this past year's game was a success. For the first time we had a small stake table lead by the club's treasurer as an alternative for players to join. That alternative coupled with changing the format from $10/$20 fixed-limit to $5/$5 pot-limit caused us to lose a couple of players which resulted in the game ending 60 to 90 minutes early half the time.

Hopefully, we will get to decide next years format. Hero plans to advocate for a return to the hybrid format of dealer's choice $10/$20 Fixed Limit Hold-em/CP/Omaha-hi or $1/$2 with a $2BBA NLHE/PLCP/PLO. The reason for the crazy format is there were not enough players willing to play one without the other. No limit players didn't want to sit down at a fixed limit table and vice versa. So a compromise was struck. That is what happens when you want to have a card game in a private club like a bowling alley. You need to have player involvement in order for the game to succeed. This year, board members took control of the game. There was no democratic process.

Using your position within a private club to put yourself in charge of a card game only works if you have a healthy volume of players, but that has proven not to be the case. The game held together, but it did not hold together well.

As to last night: the player pool is likely responsible for why Hero found the game lacking, not having 9 players could have also been a factor. Half the players that comprise our group have been playing Fixed Limit for 30 years. In Hero's opinion, Fixed Limit can be interesting, but only if you find the sweet spot. For Hero, $6/$12 sucked, but the game became more enjoyable after the stakes were raised to $8/$16. The game played even better when everyone agreed to bump the blinds to $10/$20.

 

[suchj0sh]

5.5 hours with just 8 players and no backups sounds pretty good to me honestly. I also like Crazy Pineapple, and made my group play a few hands of it in my last game.

What about a draw game? 2-7 single draw?

 

[Mojo1312]

Drawmaha failed miserably, as did 7 card stud. We have a mix of old stogies who are set in their ways and middle age players who don't have the patience for longer games like 7CS.

This year Hero framed CP as a crossover game between NLHE and PLO, which made the idea of giving it a chance more digestible.

 

[Mojo1312]

The question this may raise is why be involved at all? There is an easy answer. It is a two hour drive for Hero to the nearest casino and underground cash games, and it is a one hour dive to the weekly $1/$2 NLHE cash game.

Hero would not invite a third of the cast of characters that play at the bowling alley into his home. Far easier for Hero to have the freedom to drive the 10 minutes to the bowling alley to play and leave as he pleases.

That just goes with living in a rural area.

 

[JustinInMN]

As to last night: the player pool is likely responsible for why Hero found the game lacking, not having 9 players could have also been a factor. Half the players that comprise our group have been playing Fixed Limit for 30 years. In Hero's opinion, Fixed Limit can be interesting, but only if you find the sweet spot. For Hero, $6/$12 sucked, but the game became more enjoyable after the stakes were raised to $8/$16. The game played even better when everyone agreed to bump the blinds to $10/$20.

Ah I see. FWIW, I think 8 players is great, I wouldn't trouble myself too much for not having 9. My local club went to 8-handed for pandemic reasons in all games, even hold'em, and never switched back.

So just my 2¢ I suppose. Is there a reason you dislike 8 handed substantially compared to 9 handed?

 

[Mojo1312]

Ah I see. FWIW, I think 8 players is great, I wouldn't trouble myself too much for not having 9. My local club went to 8-handed for pandemic reasons in all games, even hold'em, and never switched back.

So just my 2¢ I suppose. Is there a reason you dislike 8 handed substantially compared to 9 handed?

Hero has struggled with boredom at the poker table for the past couple of years now. Some of Hero's fondest memories are playing five or six handed during the lockdown. Having a ninth player in the game could have created a little more excitement. Who knows? The game just felt bland to Hero.

Despite Hero's best efforts to include 7CS (and until this last session, CP) players stubbornly stick with what they know. There deep-rooted recalcitrance to anything new is truly unbelievable. One player loudly gripes that Hero should be running the game every week throughout the summer, but doesn't want to share hosting duties.

Home games involve friends. We have a mish-mash of players whose only common interest is cards, which is a key difference. Establishing a natural level of camaraderie with random players you meet at a private bowling club is difficult.