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

[1A25R]

Have you asked "why?" to the 3 fellas that would like to play 1/1 ?
What's your current max buy-in currently ?


I have same kind of discussion in the past with some of my players.
Some of them considered that with higher stakes there will be less limpers.

 

[slisk250]

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

everything here....just one more thing. What stakes does the host want?... Your game, your rules...

 

[MrCatPants]

Have you asked "why?" to the 3 fellas that would like to play 1/1 ?
What's your current max buy-in currently ?


I have same kind of discussion in the past with some of my players.
Some of them considered that with higher stakes there will be less limpers.

They have more disposable income than they used to and play in other 1/1 games. Losing 300 or 400 in a night isnt awesome for them, but isnt crippling either.

 

[MrCatPants]

everything here....just one more thing. What stakes does the host want?... Your game, your rules...

I just want a regular, well run game stakes going up would be fine by me, stakes the same would be fine too.

 

[APatHand]

I know of a NLHE/Big-O game (in NY) with 1/1 blinds and a $100 buy-in where it is not unheard of for someone to get stuck in for 4 figures (with a crooked number leading that parade). Yes, it is a flurry of rebuys, but that is they way the game has been played for 25 years. The point is that it is the players that primarily drive the action, not the blinds or the buy-in.

In general, I think that for most hesitant people it is the idea of a bigger game that is more scary than the fact.

So, it seems to me raising the size of the starting buy-in 50% or so would be a subtle enough change as to not push anyone off the island. If it does, then they were probably ready to 'swim for it' anyway. One side case might be where a couple were playing off a single bankroll, but you know your players better than anyone else. After a while at the larger buy-in you could trial larger blinds with the intention of not going back.

It's your game, do what you want.

However, if you do decide to make a change, give your players ample advanced warning of that change. No one really likes that kind of surprise, especially if they tend to arrive underfunded or with one buy-in. I would also suggest not getting in the habit of floating players.

(On a personal note, it doesn't matter to me. I always bring enough cash to accommodate an escalation in action.)

 

[justsomedude]

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.

^^^^ This.

If I raised the stakes I'd lose some players. I have a solid rotation of 10-15 regulars for cash games, and I'd hate to make that group any smaller.

I've hosted "higher stakes" nights ($1/$2) twice in the last five years to try and satisfy those folks, and both times they were only single table events. People just don't want to play with that much loot at a "fun" poker night. There's a big difference between hosting a social poker night where people are bringing $200-$300, and hosting a serious game where 3-4 buyins is now more than some one's rent. And that's just not the crew I play with.

If you want to get "splashier" pots, try throwing in some mixed games like PLO, BIGO, Pineapple, SOHE, etc. These are relatively simple variants of NLHE that usually play a lot bigger (at least relative to HE hands). I've also started throwing in $2 double-board bomb pots on the half-hour when hosting HE, which is another fun way to mix things up. There's plenty of ways to get more cash on the table with the stakes you have, you just gotta get creative.

 

[MrCatPants]

So, it seems to me raising the size of the starting buy-in 50% or so would be a subtle enough change as to not push anyone off the island. If it does, then they were probably ready to 'swim for it' anyway. One side case might be where a couple were playing off a single bankroll, but you know your players better than anyone else. After a while at the larger buy-in you could trial larger blinds with the intention of not going back.

However, if you do decide to make a change, give your players ample advanced warning of that change. No one really likes that kind of surprise, especially if they tend to arrive underfunded or with one buy-in. I would also suggest not getting in the habit of floating players.

(On a personal note, it doesn't matter to me. I always bring enough cash to accommodate an escalation in action.)

I'm thinking about asking everyone on Thursday on this question accordingly. Appreciate the feedback.

 

[MrCatPants]

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.

I've often wondered about this as in rebuy heavy cash games (as mine is) stacks tend to get pretty deep after even just a few hours. It's an interesting idea. Or maybe I allow a single straddle after 10pm.

 

[Darson]

I think your game is rebuy heavy because the initial buy-in is small at 80BB. This allows people to commit stacks while knowing they'll only be out $40. The general opening raise seems to be $3 so it's playing like a .50/$1 game anyway. But the lower initial buy-in may keep people at the table longer.

I wonder if raising the initial buy-in to $60 or $80 would change play by making people less likely to commit stacks or will it result in people exhausting their bankroll earlier and then be more likely to leave? I think upping the initial max buy-in is an easy way to get more money on the table but also allows those that want to commit $40 at a time to be able to do so. But the question here is whether the "higher stakes" crowd would be placated by this change?

My thoughts on stakes:
- If I was you, I would ask your players individually about raising stakes (maybe by email) and not at the table. At the table, the macho/bravado will result in most agreeing to raise stakes but then some may stop coming.
- Are there players in your list who don't come as often and may be attracted back by higher stakes? A good question to ask.
- Would those who want the stakes raised be less likely to come if the stakes aren't raised? This is also an important question to ask.

The real calculus is whether your active players will increase or decrease if you do or don't raise stakes.

 

[Coyote]

Aaah, this may explain a lot!
80BBs standard?
Leave the stakes where they are (or make them .50.50 - I hate quarters but that's just me) and have a buy in range from 80 to 140-150 BBs ($40-75)
This "should" keep everybody happy.
But @Darson is right; ask people individually.

 

[MrCatPants]

I think your game is rebuy heavy because the initial buy-in is small at 80BB. This allows people to commit stacks while knowing they'll only be out $40. The general opening raise seems to be $3 so it's playing like a .50/$1 game anyway. But the lower initial buy-in may keep people at the table longer.

I wonder if raising the initial buy-in to $60 or $80 would change play by making people less likely to commit stacks or will it result in people exhausting their bankroll earlier and then be more likely to leave? I think upping the initial max buy-in is an easy way to get more money on the table but also allows those that want to commit $40 at a time to be able to do so. But the question here is whether the "higher stakes" crowd would be placated by this change?

My thoughts on stakes:
- If I was you, I would ask your players individually about raising stakes (maybe by email) and not at the table. At the table, the macho/bravado will result in most agreeing to raise stakes but then some may stop coming.
- Are there players in your list who don't come as often and may be attracted back by higher stakes? A good question to ask.
- Would those who want the stakes raised be less likely to come if the stakes aren't raised? This is also an important question to ask.

The real calculus is whether your active players will increase or decrease if you do or don't raise stakes.

Good thoughts.

I was thinking of raising the max for buy-in but still allowing buyin for $40. So doing $40-$60 or something similar.

I don't think I've lost any players due to the stakes being too low, but I do think there are some player referrals I haven't gotten to come because the stakes are lower than they'd like.

 

[APatHand]

As I was saying, it is primarily the players that drive the action, not the blinds or buy-ins.

 

[phdlance]

Like a dutch auction, I would opt for the lowest blinds that get people to participate.