Cash Game Several players request to up stakes? (1 Viewer)

[MrCatPants]

Curious to hear from those of you who have had this come up.

Recently, 3 of my regular players asked me about increasing stakes from .25/.50 to .50/1 or 1/1 and increasing buyins as well. I've talked to a few other players in response - 2 would prefer stakes to stay the same, one would be ok with an increase but wouldn't push for it.

Thoughts on the right way to handle this from here?

 

[Beakertwang]

Keep the game where it is for the current group, but try to recruit players for the higher stakes. I know that for my group, raising the stakes to .25/.25 would force some of them out.

 

[Coyotesetter]

Try keeping the blinds the same and raise the max buy in for a few sessions. If that goes well then raise the blinds. If your game plays like most home games I've been to you're probably playing bigger than the blinds anyway.
Our game used to be .25/.50 with a max buy in of $60. Then we raised max buy in to $100. Then raised blinds to $1/$1 with a max buy in of $100. Now the regular game is $1/$1 with max buy in of $150. People love it. Just my two cents.

 

[Kimurasays]

Keep the game where it is for the current group, but try to recruit players for the higher stakes. I know that for my group, raising the stakes to .25/.25 would force some of them out.

I agree with this, as my group is very similar. I wouldn’t want to force anyone out of the game because they thought the blinds/buy-ins were too pricey for them.

 

[Darson]

As an occasional player
- I'd be fine with increasing the initial max buy-in to $60 or $80, the current $40 is 80BB which is a little tight.
- I would prefer the blinds to stay the same, they don't really impact play other than the initial round of betting in PLO. Increasing blinds will just push people who are not comfortable at that level away from the table.

I think the real question is whether you'll be gaining or losing players if you increased the stakes?

 

[Coyote]

People will hardly ever admit they 're not comfortable with a higher-stakes game. Pride and social relationship play a role.
But, if they 're not really comfortable, and, especially if there is an influx of more skilled players, you 're going to loose your old poker buddies.
The sensible thing to do is to form a lower-stakes social /old friends crew and a somewhat higher-stakes, more poker-oriented crew of people seeing the game more competitively.
In the (risky) attempt to reconcile both crews, I 'do .50/.50 at 120 BBs standard buy-in ($60), or even .50/$1 at 60 BBs min, 100 BBs max.

 

[MrCatPants]

As an occasional player
- I'd be fine with increasing the initial max buy-in to $60 or $80, the current $40 is 80BB which is a little tight.
- I would prefer the blinds to stay the same, they don't really impact play other than the initial round of betting in PLO. Increasing blinds will just push people who are not comfortable at that level away from the table.

I think the real question is whether you'll be gaining or losing players if you increased the stakes?

I do like the idea of maybe doing it by increasing the buy-in max as a response & compromise. Like you said, it's not that PLO isn't actiony as the stacks get deeper as the night moves on

 

[abby99]

People will hardly ever admit they 're not comfortable with a higher-stakes game.

This. It's easier to stop playing.

 

[Coyote]

By the way, have you tried 3-card Omaha?
It produces the equivalent of just 3 TX Hold'em hands (instead of 6) and can be very well played NL, without drama.

 

[AWenger]

Do you allow straddles?

 

[Ethan]

I feel the same as @Darson but understand I’m a newbie and you can’t make everyone happy! Hoping to be at the next one!

 

[MrCatPants]

Do you allow straddles?

No.

 

[Beakertwang]

Do you allow straddles?

Might be a good compromise to allow a UTG straddle to $1.

 

[Darson]

People will hardly ever admit they 're not comfortable with a higher-stakes game. Pride and social relationship play a role.

Just because I like needling my Greek friend, I will admit that I'm not comfortable playing .50/$1 or higher regularly. I would play these stakes or even up to $1/$3 at a casino on vacation or occasion (like once or twice a year) but I would definitely not play monthly at that level. I'm not good enough at the pokerz for that!

 

[Coyote]

Might be a good compromise to allow a UTG straddle to $1.

Hell no!
I 'm probably already famous (or infamous?) here for producing immeasurable amounts of hatred against straddles, but the reason is simple:
By allowing straddles, you fool people marginally comfortable with the announced stakes into a game they just can't afford.
NOT good and honest, if you 're even distantly socially related to those people.
I never allow that crap in my house, and, as I' ve said before, I 'd never allow my children do it (if I had any, that is )

 

[MrCatPants]

Hell no!
I 'm probably already famous (or infamous?) here for producing immeasurable amounts of hatred against straddles, but the reason is simple:
By allowing straddles, you fool people marginally comfortable with the announced stakes into a game they just can't afford.
NOT good and honest, if you 're even distantly socially related to those people.
I never allow that crap in my house, and, as I' ve said before, I 'd never allow my children do it (if I had any, that is )

I feel the same way about them.

 

[DrStrange]

The size of the buy-in is more significant than the size of the blinds. Any way you look at it, raising the stakes means the losers are going to lose more money.

The scale of their losses is not linier with the increase of stakes if the increase comes from bigger/deeper buy-ins. Weaker players are at an increased disadvantage when playing deeper stacks.

So why is it that there is an interest in a bigger game? Who's interests are being served? Is the host comfortable with the loss of part of the regular crew? Could it be that one of the "benefits" is the pruning of the invitation list?

If the host would like to test things out, I suggest having a bonus game one month with bigger amounts of money at stake. See who shows up and use that information to guide the decisions in the future.

For what it is worth, I host three different level games most months - - - a $0.25/$0.50 game with $20 max buy in; a $1/$1 game with a $100 max buy in; and a $1/$2 game with a "match the biggest stack" buy-in. These games attract a widely different group of players with only marginal overlap. I will not be surprised if our host in this thread finds a similar sort of result in his games.

Danger! a bad decision here will put your game at risk -=- DrStrange

 

[Coyote]

Just because I like needling my Greek friend, I will admit that I'm not comfortable playing .50/$1 or higher regularly. I would play these stakes or even up to $1/$3 at a casino on vacation or occasion (like once or twice a year) but I would definitely not play monthly at that level. I'm not good enough at the pokerz for that!

Agreed and respected; from a mathematical point of view, though, you should be playing at the very same stakes throughout you life.
What if Lady Luck (good variance) visits you at .25/.25 and totally forgets about you during that yearly $1/3?

 

[MrCatPants]

The size of the buy-in is more significant than the size of the blinds. Any way you look at it, raising the stakes means the losers are going to lose more money.

The scale of their losses is not linier with the increase of stakes if the increase comes from bigger/deeper buy-ins. Weaker players are at an increased disadvantage when playing deeper stacks.

So why is it that there is an interest in a bigger game? Who's interests are being served? Is the host comfortable with the loss of part of the regular crew? Could it be that one of the "benefits" is the pruning of the invitation list?

If the host would like to test things out, I suggest having a bonus game one month with bigger amounts of money at stake. See who shows up and use that information to guide the decisions in the future.

For what it is worth, I host three different level games most months - - - a $0.25/$0.50 game with $20 max buy in; a $1/$1 game with a $100 max buy in; and a $1/$2 game with a "match the biggest stack" buy-in. These games attract a widely different group of players with only marginal overlap. I will not be surprised if our host in this thread finds a similar sort of result in his games.

Danger! a bad decision here will put your game at risk -=- DrStrange

That last statement is specifically why I asked this crew.

It's a long running game that has only raised stakes once in 15 years. Players have churned though. And most (not all) have bigger jobs than they did in the past and so the personal meanings of the stakes have changed. A crippling loss for one player is a small night out of fun for another.

 

[Ethan]

What if Tyche visits you at .25/.25 and Atë visits you during that yearly $1/3?

FYP

 

[sheikh617]

A few weeks ago I had my normal .25/.50 game and out of left field 4 hours in there was 4k on the table and it was shocking to see the stacks everyone had. My immediate reaction after was to think about upping blinds or allowing a larger buy in because the action was way bigger then .25/.50 anyways. I ended up sticking with keeping things the same because half my player base likes the game because on most occasions it runs smaller than a game you'd play at a casino. I don't want my game to have casino stakes because I too want to play a game where if I have a bad night I don't feel like I lost my shirt. If your higher stakes players put pressure on you I would side with the recommendation above of having them help you recruit a separate player pool for bigger games. I like home games for the social factor, and sure winning money is sweet but I just want to have a good time and mix it up on the felt.

 

[Rhodeman77]

I agree with starting by increasing the max buy-in to $100. The players that don’t want to play deeper don’t have to still. But the players that do have that option then. Stack depth is always the more important factor.

After that I’d people are still wanting the blinds raised I would have a one off game that is 50c/$1 $150 or $200 max every other month if there is enough demand.

Put some of work on the players asking for the bigger game to recruit some players as well. Tell them each to find 1 player that wants to play those stakes that they would vouch for.

I have a player that keeps asking me to have a $2/5 Hold’em only game. And I keep telling her if she helps me find the players I’ll have the game. It hasn’t happened yet.

 

[Coyote]

Judging from my experience, disposable income, curiously (or not so much) comes second.
The single most decisive factor I have found, for people to play higher stakes (or just play!) is having no children or having aleady adult children.
Wives also can play a crucial role, but I won't descend into macho crap.
Just to let you know that, by making the game a little more competitive (by recruiting some genuine poker fans) and raising the stakes a little, I lost (as a player) my Godson's father and oldest friend of mine (most successful and wealthy guy among all of us), with whom we 've been friends since September 1978 (we met at the school bus stop).

 

[Eloe2000]

Our game is about 8 years (although I took over hosting 2-3 yrs ago) old and is very low stakes and casual for those involved. For many of us it is the one thing we do for ourselves every week in and week out. We play .25/.25 but guys come straight from playing 2/4 at the casino. We have many local casinos and several players play weekly cash and tourney at casinos. We also have one semi-pro. We also have two younger DINKs who blow cash at the casino like crazy. Several people wanted to up our stakes at the home game... so I scheduled a quarterly 1/1 game. Turns out it completely killed the vibe and after one 1/1 event no one brought it up again.

It turns out everyone comes to our regular game as an escape and for pleasure and comradery. They go to the casino to gamble or win cash. So I have also learned to double down on those aspects our game and the experience when hosting. Try new things, but try to know your audience and understand what you want out of your game.

 

[Rhodeman77]

Judging from my experience, disposable income, curiously (or not so much) comes second.
The single most decisive factor I have found, for people to play higher stakes (or just play!) is having no children or having aleady adult children.
Wives also can play a crucial role, but I won't descend into macho crap.
Just to let you know that, by making the game a little more competitive (by recruiting some genuine poker fans) and raising the stakes a little, I lost (as a player) my Godson's father and oldest friend of mine (most successful and wealthy guy among all of us), with whom we 've been friends since September 1978 (we met at the school bus stop).

Great point. Among my poker group, even semi regular players, I am the only one with young kids and married. If they have younger kids they are divorced so they only have the kids 1/2 the time or if they are married, grown or no kids.

Last summer I went on a camping trip with a group of 15 people in our poker group, I was the only one with a wife and kids waiting at home for me.

Poker is definitely not conducive to being married with young children.

 

[TheWhiteJZ]

Can you say an occasional game is going to be “high stakes week” and see if you get turn out?Maybe once a month. Or maybe even start at midnight.If so, after a time if ppl are comfortable you can move to every other. And so on. Don’t see why you gotta go whole hog right away

 

[JustinInMN]

1) Raising the max is okay. I did change my 50c BB game to 60 max instead of 40 and it does play pretty big.

2) How often do you play? Would it be outrageous to change the stakes one game every couple months as an experiment? This answer probably keeps the lower game health and will show the players hoping for higher whether or not it's viable.

 

[MrCatPants]

1) Raising the max is okay. I did change my 50c BB game to 60 max instead of 40 and it does play pretty big.

2) How often do you play? Would it be outrageous to change the stakes one game every couple months as an experiment? This answer probably keeps the lower game health and will show the players hoping for higher whether or not it's viable.

We play one cash game a month and one tourney.

 

[JustinInMN]

We play one cash game a month and one tourney.

Ah okay, the game isn't so frequent that you want to mess with it. If you can, start a separate game with those players off of the regular schedule. "High stakes night" every month or two.

 

[Mojo1312]

Another alternative is to allow players to double the blinds on their deal after a certain point in the evening, say 10:00 for example. Ask for feedback from your players to see if they are comfortable with this arrangement.

Playing for the same stakes can become stale over time. I started my own home game because I grew tired of $20 buy-ins. Players can easily leave a game they have outgrown. People don't often consider that possibility when having these conversations.