Rebuying for more than max: did I overstep as host? (1 Viewer)

[DrStrange]

I tried to keep out of this . . . but I can't.

It is misguided at best to say the big stack has a playing advantage over a short stack in a cash game. This isn't a tournament. The big stack can't put my night at risk because I can always buy more chips before the next hand. I know many, many people conflate the tournament experience with a cash game environment - - but it just wrong.

A big stack played by a skilled player has an advantage over a similar stack played by a weak player. This shouldn't be a surprise, a better player should hold an advantage. We can appreciate why a better player should choose to rebuy for larger amounts of money when there are larger stacks in front of weak players. This might not be good for the game, but it is in the short term interest of the better player.

However, if the players are of roughly equivalent skill the short stacks hold an advantage over the deep stacks in multiway situations. Heads-up, the stack sizes don't matter - your million dollar stack vs my hundred dollar stack can only win a hundred dollars, I'll rebuy if needed for the next hand.

Why do the short stacks have an edge over two or more big stacks in a hand? Because the short stack gets to play a short-stack style of play. Typically a one or two street style focusing on one-pair type hands. The short stack can count on low SPR situations and exploit that situation. But the short stack has to be able to fold a lot.

The big stacks are well advised to spend their focus on each other rather than on the short stack. There is much more to be gained or lost from/to the other big stack(s). The big stacks are always in a high SPR pot and thus can play a wide range of speculative hands. But the short stack should be focused on a tighter range of "top pair" hands where he/she will be all-in on the flop vs the deep stacks speculative hands.

I practice what I preach. I rarely (re)buy in for more than 100bb even if the other players are holding 500bb+ stacks. Playing short stack strategies vs the deeper stacks is like printing money vs aggressive/sticky deep stacks. Sure I will fold a lot. And I will need to be prepared to rebuy as the style means a number of all-in situations as a 60/40 favorite. But math will eventually even out. Every hand I play ends up worth something like +10bb or 20bb on average. I can't be out played. And I get to "advertise" a short stack hand selection at show down which doesn't reflect what hands I am playing once I have won enough money to be deep stacked.

DrStrange

 

[APatHand]

JUST SAY no TO CAPS!

I don't really care, I just like to foment unrest.

 

[Moxie Mike]

The biggest argument IMO in favor of throttling buy-ins and top-ups isn't the advantage gained by a good player that a bigger stack affords. The issue is when the average player who's up a couple racks becomes intimidated and cashes in his chips. This is less than ideal in a casino, but it can decimate a home game when there's not a endless cycle of new players ready to fill open seats.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

Again thanks for the comments, and yes, it's pretty clear that I made a mistake. And honestly, I think I knew that, otherwise why did it bother me enough to post this in the first place?

I think the important thread to pull at this point is whether or not a HTBS rebuy is a good idea for my game going forward. Here's some relevant info:

• Most of my cash players routinely play 1/2 or 2/5 casino games. Incidentally, these are also the players who tend to play the longest and are most comfortable with deep stacked play.
• Some players have advocated for a HTBS rule in previous discussions
• I've always made it clear that I set the rules in my game. I'll listen to and consider your opinion, but it's not a democracy.
• I try very hard to avoid rule changes that will alienate players or that could hurt the game long-term.

I'm leaning toward allowing HTBS rebuys after midnight, perhaps with a $250-300 cap. This is the point in my games when most of the casual players have left, and those who remain usually have deep stacks and are comfortable playing them.

Convince me why this is or is not a good idea.

 

[phaze12]

I tried to keep out of this . . . but I can't.

It is misguided at best to say the big stack has a playing advantage over a short stack in a cash game. This isn't a tournament. The big stack can't put my night at risk because I can always buy more chips before the next hand. I know many, many people conflate the tournament experience with a cash game environment - - but it just wrong.

A big stack played by a skilled player has an advantage over a similar stack played by a weak player. This shouldn't be a surprise, a better player should hold an advantage. We can appreciate why a better player should choose to rebuy for larger amounts of money when there are larger stacks in front of weak players. This might not be good for the game, but it is in the short term interest of the better player.

However, if the players are of roughly equivalent skill the short stacks hold an advantage over the deep stacks in multiway situations. Heads-up, the stack sizes don't matter - your million dollar stack vs my hundred dollar stack can only win a hundred dollars, I'll rebuy if needed for the next hand.

Why do the short stacks have an edge over two or more big stacks in a hand? Because the short stack gets to play a short-stack style of play. Typically a one or two street style focusing on one-pair type hands. The short stack can count on low SPR situations and exploit that situation. But the short stack has to be able to fold a lot.

The big stacks are well advised to spend their focus on each other rather than on the short stack. There is much more to be gained or lost from/to the other big stack(s). The big stacks are always in a high SPR pot and thus can play a wide range of speculative hands. But the short stack should be focused on a tighter range of "top pair" hands where he/she will be all-in on the flop vs the deep stacks speculative hands.

I practice what I preach. I rarely (re)buy in for more than 100bb even if the other players are holding 500bb+ stacks. Playing short stack strategies vs the deeper stacks is like printing money vs aggressive/sticky deep stacks. Sure I will fold a lot. And I will need to be prepared to rebuy as the style means a number of all-in situations as a 60/40 favorite. But math will eventually even out. Every hand I play ends up worth something like +10bb or 20bb on average. I can't be out played. And I get to "advertise" a short stack hand selection at show down which doesn't reflect what hands I am playing once I have won enough money to be deep stacked.

DrStrange

I understand this and agree whole heartedly. But players that do not understand this will look at what is happening and say “fuck this”. I’m not playing like this.

Like I said, for a game to last long term, you need a mix of players good and bad. If you want to just pass money around the table then by all means have every player be good. But that’s not poker.

 

[APatHand]

I understand this and agree whole heartedly. But players that do not understand this will look at what is happening and say “fuck this”. I’m not playing like this.

I think the typcial response will be something more like this old saw:
A: Why do you play in that game when you know they are cheating you?
B: It's the only game in town.

 

[pltrgyst]

[QUOTE="DrStrange, post: 770451, member: 574"....However, if the players are of roughly equivalent skill the short stacks hold an advantage over the deep stacks in multiway situations. Heads-up, the stack sizes don't matter - your million dollar stack vs my hundred dollar stack can only win a hundred dollars, I'll rebuy if needed for the next hand....[/QUOTE]

Thus one of my long-time favorite poker expressions: "The tyranny of the short stack."

Buying in short at least occasionally is good even if it's just for practice.

 

[JustinInMN]

Personally, I think that if a up-to-1/2-bigstack rule is in effect, then the big stack should also be allowed to go south with up to 1/2 of his stack. Or at least be able to also add-on as much as the other guy did.

Flame away, but it makes sense to me.

In a nutshell this is why I think hand caps are a better alternative to buy in caps. Everyone has the same effective stack every hand unless they are under the hand cap.

But most players seem to prefer buy in caps for simplicity.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

I tried to keep out of this . . . but I can't.

It is misguided at best to say the big stack has a playing advantage over a short stack in a cash game. This isn't a tournament. The big stack can't put my night at risk because I can always buy more chips before the next hand. I know many, many people conflate the tournament experience with a cash game environment - - but it just wrong.

A big stack played by a skilled player has an advantage over a similar stack played by a weak player. This shouldn't be a surprise, a better player should hold an advantage. We can appreciate why a better player should choose to rebuy for larger amounts of money when there are larger stacks in front of weak players. This might not be good for the game, but it is in the short term interest of the better player.

However, if the players are of roughly equivalent skill the short stacks hold an advantage over the deep stacks in multiway situations. Heads-up, the stack sizes don't matter - your million dollar stack vs my hundred dollar stack can only win a hundred dollars, I'll rebuy if needed for the next hand.

Why do the short stacks have an edge over two or more big stacks in a hand? Because the short stack gets to play a short-stack style of play. Typically a one or two street style focusing on one-pair type hands. The short stack can count on low SPR situations and exploit that situation. But the short stack has to be able to fold a lot.

The big stacks are well advised to spend their focus on each other rather than on the short stack. There is much more to be gained or lost from/to the other big stack(s). The big stacks are always in a high SPR pot and thus can play a wide range of speculative hands. But the short stack should be focused on a tighter range of "top pair" hands where he/she will be all-in on the flop vs the deep stacks speculative hands.

I practice what I preach. I rarely (re)buy in for more than 100bb even if the other players are holding 500bb+ stacks. Playing short stack strategies vs the deeper stacks is like printing money vs aggressive/sticky deep stacks. Sure I will fold a lot. And I will need to be prepared to rebuy as the style means a number of all-in situations as a 60/40 favorite. But math will eventually even out. Every hand I play ends up worth something like +10bb or 20bb on average. I can't be out played. And I get to "advertise" a short stack hand selection at show down which doesn't reflect what hands I am playing once I have won enough money to be deep stacked.

DrStrange

In theory, with people of similar skill levels, you're probably right. But if someone acquires a big stack who may not be comfortable with their stack size, they may play extra conservativly and suboptimally if they are confronted with another big stack. Like someone said above, you don't want to make things uncomfortable for those less experienced, because they may decide not to come back. And if you're losing your new players, you're game isn't growing, and that's never a good thing.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Again thanks for the comments, and yes, it's pretty clear that I made a mistake. And honestly, I think I knew that, otherwise why did it bother me enough to post this in the first place?

I think the important thread to pull at this point is whether or not a HTBS rebuy is a good idea for my game going forward. Here's some relevant info:

• Most of my cash players routinely play 1/2 or 2/5 casino games. Incidentally, these are also the players who tend to play the longest and are most comfortable with deep stacked play.
• Some players have advocated for a HTBS rule in previous discussions
• I've always made it clear that I set the rules in my game. I'll listen to and consider your opinion, but it's not a democracy.
• I try very hard to avoid rule changes that will alienate players or that could hurt the game long-term.

I'm leaning toward allowing HTBS rebuys after midnight, perhaps with a $250-300 cap. This is the point in my games when most of the casual players have left, and those who remain usually have deep stacks and are comfortable playing them.

Convince me why this is or is not a good idea.

That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Limiting it to after midnight is a good way to go. That way, players who don't want to do it can still get a decent night of poker in before the Big Game erupts.

 

[Marc Hedrick]

It’s simple, you were trying to add on to almost $500 when the big stack was barely $500. We didn’t have a problem the first time because there was a big stack at the table, so you weren’t buying in for more than half the big stack. Your memory is almost as flawed as your poker playing.

In my regular games, half the deep stack is equal to half the deepest stack at any point in the game, at any table (2 table Max in our games). So if player X had $800 an hour ago, and now has $650, I can still buy in for $400.



@detroitdad correct me if I'm wrong on this. I think this is a good policy. Covers people changing tables, etc.

 

[Chippy McChiperson]

So if the big stack cashes out for $1200, and the next biggest stack is $300, you can buy in for $600? That makes no sense.

 

[Marc Hedrick]

So if the big stack cashes out for $1200, and the next biggest stack is $300, you can buy in for $600? That makes no sense.

I dont think it makes less sense than that scenario ever occurring, though. If someone cashes out $1200 and the next biggest stack is $300 it better be pretty close to closing time. I think the half the biggest stack rule has to do with how the game has been playing, how much action people are giving, etc. If someone has $1200 in a game where the next biggest stack is $300 a couple things are happening. 1)They're running like God and 2)People are gambling. I don't think allowing someone to buy in big to that type of game is a problem.

 

[Marc Hedrick]

Also, would it be fair to allow someone to buy in for $600 just before he cashed out then drop it to $300 (half his stack) just a moment later?

 

[Frogzilla]

To me, there are two very separate parts to this question. I have a vanilla opinion on one part and a scorching hot take on the other.

1) You shouldn't exempt yourself from a rule. Absolutely not cool. If you set a rule, have the discipline to follow it.

2) In your next friendly game, just ditch the max buy-in. Let your players decide how much (or how little!) cash they enjoy risking. Let them go south if their stack has gotten above their comfort zone. Let them top up as they see fit. Set the stakes, recommend a buy-in amount, and just play some fun pokers. I know, allowing going south sounds kind of crazy. But from experience, it works out just fine.

 

[detroitdad]

@detroitdad correct me if I'm wrong on this. I think this is a good policy. Covers people changing tables, etc.

correct

So if the big stack cashes out for $1200, and the next biggest stack is $300, you can buy in for $600? That makes no sense.

correct. and I disagree ( and unrealistic for our game fwiw).