Situation at homegame (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Eriks
- Start date
We had a guy in our home game like that once. "Experienced" meaning he played a lot of casino poker. But this is a self-dealt home game so mistakes happen (cards get flipped up, people bet/fold out of turn, people don't min raise properly). As a group, we patiently explain theses things to new peeps and laugh them off and mostly they only happen 2-3 times per night.
But he would get so upset and start with the "this is how its played in such and such casino". Point being, his experience was with casino games and didn't translate to a casual home game environment. So we just left him off the invite list even though he was friends with several people at the table and have been the happier for it.
The only problem, despite his "experience", he was a pretty big fish so my win rate went down substantially
PS Fresca
But he would get so upset and start with the "this is how its played in such and such casino". Point being, his experience was with casino games and didn't translate to a casual home game environment. So we just left him off the invite list even though he was friends with several people at the table and have been the happier for it.
The only problem, despite his "experience", he was a pretty big fish so my win rate went down substantially
PS
Fresca
Expecting you to fix a problem you weren't even made aware of and then throwing a tantrum when you don't? Making the entire room uncomfortable and single-handedly cratering an evening designed as a good time? Encouraging mutual friends to ignore you when they don't get their way?
You sure this is a poker-buddy and not an ex-wife?
You sure this is a poker-buddy and not an ex-wife?
No mention if drinking is involved. (other than Fresca) Seems there is always that one guy, generally nice, has a few more pops than necessary, gets rivered a couple times and the ensuing tilt is not pleasant. Then a week later comes the "It won't happen again" groveling to get back into good graces.
you can’t ban dark raises. (Well you could but that’s just weird). It’s NLHE.
Sounds like the grumpy pants guy had his own game going but doesn’t thave enough players so he and few of his crew come to yours. He’s not used to flow of the game and can’t adapt.
He must go.
Nothing worse than miserable people at the poker table. Victim mentality is the worst
Don’t drink soda anymore but Fresca is (was) DELICIOUS. !!
This villain Is Unnecessary and shouldn’t be at the table
Sounds like the grumpy pants guy had his own game going but doesn’t thave enough players so he and few of his crew come to yours. He’s not used to flow of the game and can’t adapt.
He must go.
Nothing worse than miserable people at the poker table. Victim mentality is the worst
Don’t drink soda anymore but Fresca is (was) DELICIOUS. !!
This villain Is Unnecessary and shouldn’t be at the table
Last edited:
all fresca is diet fresca
That’s how long since I’ve drank soda. Forgot that
CrazyEddie
Full House
It would be a bad idea to make it against the rules of the game, but, contrariwise, it would be no problem at all to tell people who do it all the time to knock it off or they won't get invited back. If that's what suits the host.
But then change the game from NLHE to something else.
When you think it’s ok to dictate how people raise or by how much or when. Outside of the normal parameters. Then maybe that game choice is not best suited for those players
What next? Check raising all the time upsets someone ?
CrazyEddie
Full House
How about "NLHE, but if you keep raising in the dark you won't be invited back"? That seems like a mouthful, why not just call it NLHE for short?
House rules are house rules. Nobody owes you a justification for it.
That said, the justification is about keeping the stakes as expected, which includes "no straddles" (in the OP's game). If someone is raising in the dark all the time, they're trying to get around the "no straddles" rule. Asking them not to do that doesn't seem like a crazy thing to do.
mack10man
Sitting Out
The guy was totally irrational and acted like a child, you did the right thing as a host, don’t overthink it
OP
OP
Situation has resolved itself since manbaby does not want to return to the game. I was gonna leave it open to invite him back in the future if he had given me any kind of apology for abusing the chips and some acknowledgement that his general behavior was not pleasant, and was infact a far bigger factor for turning people away than me ”taking advantage” of the dark raising. I told him as much, but he did not respond.
Just relax, you can't make everyone happy. If anyone you as a host have every right to play what and how you want. If your friend is not comfortable with the game he can find himself different table.
In case you like spending time in his company just find other activities you can share...
"Poker friends" what an akward concept.....
In case you like spending time in his company just find other activities you can share...
"Poker friends" what an akward concept.....
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
I do think @upNdown 's point is well taken that the dark raises to artificially increase the stake of the game. And I will point out that @Eriks 3-betting effectively makes the dark raises no different than a straddle since the action is open to them either way after a raise. So I at least follow some of the argument the disgruntled player is making, even though there is no excuse for chip abuse on the disgruntled players' part.
But bottom line, you can't make dark raises illegal, and if you aren't willing to ever play-back at 3-bets or get mad at other players for doing what you would do yourself, you don't belong in the game. It's either too high, or you are trying to exert unfair control over it. This is another form of poker bullying. He's trying to tweak the rules so he can be the only aggressor within his comfort zone. It sounds like @Eriks is already on the right conclusion that the game doesn't need him.
But bottom line, you can't make dark raises illegal, and if you aren't willing to ever play-back at 3-bets or get mad at other players for doing what you would do yourself, you don't belong in the game. It's either too high, or you are trying to exert unfair control over it. This is another form of poker bullying. He's trying to tweak the rules so he can be the only aggressor within his comfort zone. It sounds like @Eriks is already on the right conclusion that the game doesn't need him.
Last edited:
I’m almost a year late to this one, but wanted to reinforce the point that in no universe is a dark raise the same as a straddle.
A dark raise is even more disadvantageous to the person who does it than a straddle (straddles being -EV except sometimes against very weak players)
The correct and proper adjustment is for anyone in position with almost any above-average holding to punish the blind raisers with re-raises.
I would even argue that by making these 3bets, Eriks was actually *helping* the cause of the guy who was mad about the dark raisers… because Eriks’ 3bets disincentivized them continuing to do it.
Eventually, they were going to have to stop dark raising, or go broke. Might get lucky sometimes in the short run, but long term they would be donating a ton of money to the game.
If instead, no one ever raised over the top of the dark raisers, they would likely keep doing it forever.
A dark raise is even more disadvantageous to the person who does it than a straddle (straddles being -EV except sometimes against very weak players)
The correct and proper adjustment is for anyone in position with almost any above-average holding to punish the blind raisers with re-raises.
I would even argue that by making these 3bets, Eriks was actually *helping* the cause of the guy who was mad about the dark raisers… because Eriks’ 3bets disincentivized them continuing to do it.
Eventually, they were going to have to stop dark raising, or go broke. Might get lucky sometimes in the short run, but long term they would be donating a ton of money to the game.
If instead, no one ever raised over the top of the dark raisers, they would likely keep doing it forever.
I agree with this completely.
When I compared repeated dark raises to straddles, it wasn’t to say they’re the same thing, it was just to say that they both accomplish the goal of making the game play bigger - which is similar to raising the stakes.
In this case, host had seemed to want the opposite - he banned straddles to keep the game comfortable for people who were uncomfortable with higher stakes.
So yeah, 3-bets to dissuade the dark raisers from dark raising are the right move.
But the entire story is a good example of the struggles of keeping everybody happy in a no-limit game.
OP
OP
Definitely this. I can see the point he was trying to make. It’s easy for someone that has just a little experience to take advantage of the dark raising. For complete recs that play their two cards and nothing more, I can see how the dark raises could be intimidating. I have since asked people to refrain from it but I still don’t see that it’s something I could ban.
For the sake of updating, he hasn’t been invited back nor has he approched me in anyway. So I guess it’s mutual.
Last edited:
Not to threadjack, but along the same lines, what about straddles? It varies everywhere I play, but, many casinos do button or utg. What is the opinion on allowing straddles anywhere and multiple straddles for any unspecified amount?
JustinInMN
4 of a Kind
Personally, I never got the appeal of repeating straddles. So I only allow one under the gun and everyone acts in turn. Anything else is a dark raise and dead money (player does not get to act again unless facing a re-raise.)
OP
OP
I typically don’t allow it at all. I think it’s a sure way to lose the casual players
trever
Flush
What is the difference between dark raising 100% of the time vs. looking at your cards first and then raising 100% of the time?That's important to consider.
That's correct, you can. Which effectively bans it. That's also important to understand - it's your game and you can run it any way you please. If you decide that dark raises are bad for the game, make it clear to the players who do it that continuing to do it will get them uninvited. Don't leave it out there as a vague guideline; be straight-up and crystal clear with your players.
Bear in mind that if you do this, those players might quit.
Sometimes you can't please everyone, and you'll have to decide who will be happy and stay vs. who will be upset and quit. But you should always run the kind of game that you enjoy playing in.
He should have, but it's not unreasonable for people to be upset and yet not say anything about it. People aren't perfect machines, not even in Sweden.
The first thing you'll need to do is decide whether you want to continue to allow those two players to continue to raise in the dark.
If not, then have a discussion with them, encourage them to stop, let them know they won't get invited back if they don't stop, and try to persuade them to keep coming to your games and enjoying themselves even without doing blind raises. And be prepared for them to stop coming.
If so, then have a discussion with the other player, encourage him to put up with the blind raises, make sure he knows that it's actually a losing play for the raisers and so is profitable for him as a good player, and try to persuade him to keep coming to your games and enjoying himself even with having to face occasional blind raises. And be prepared for him to stop coming (and probably to stop bringing his other friends).
---
If it were me, I'd ask the two players to stop inflating the stakes by blind raising. I'm sensitive to the stakes changing and want to protect my players. But that's me. You should do what feels right to you.
What is the difference between dark raising 100% of the time vs. looking at your cards first and then raising 100% of the time?
Unless I'm missing something, in one situation the donkey is looking at their cards, in the other the donkey doesn't.
Unless I'm missing something, in one situation the donkey is looking at their cards, in the other the donkey doesn't.
AuburnSeth
High Hand
In my opinion, if someone is raising dark (whether to get around the no-straddle or just to liven the action), how could you possibly complain about being re-raised. This is the game, it’s no limit Holdem. I can go all in if I want to, and you can either exploit me or choose to tighten up your game. Stop whining about being 3 bet after your in-the-dark raise.
AuburnSeth
High Hand
What is chip harvesting?This is just one of the many player issues a host will encounter, it is also the player choice whether he want to join the game or not when he is invited
Nothing much needed to be done as a host, I will rather have a lesser player than a unhappy player in my game. Maybe he just need a cool down period and will join the next time you invite him
Also it really not cool for him to act violent on the chip
I always made known to my game that I collect Poker chips as a hobby and do handle them with care and no harvesting of the chips is allow. I can understand the once or twice accident may happen and chips fall on the ground, but not purposely knocking the chips on the table to test how is their material are like (it happen once and I am like
NotRealNameNoSir
4 of a Kind
Take deep breaths. Its a different player complaining, not the raisers.
Its a home game thats playing higher stakes than advertised, yes the strategy is exploitable but not everyone comes to low stakes home games to exploit the game, and if your bankroll is limited it can feel tumultuous.
AuburnSeth
High Hand
Precisely the opposite. If the man baby acts first, he’s upset that people re-raise his dark raise. He’s not upset that people are betting before he has a chance to bet, he’s upset that people are “exploiting” his dark raise, which is silly anyway.
Personally, I'm all for UTG straddles in any amount, plus restraddles. But only because it works for my game. Seems like we average less than a straddle per orbit, so it doesn't affect our stakes. But people have the option to make things more interesting and sometimes they do.
Button straddles are bullshit because they're practically mandatory, so they 100% raise the stakes.
OP
OP
The dark raise people weren’t complaining, it was just the grumpy old card dead man who didn’t get to play anything speculative due to inflated pots pre (he was not dark raising himself). And he was (legitimately, I guess) concerned that stakes ended up being a lot higher than advertised making the casual players uncomfortable. Hard to set rules against it and enforcing them.
Harvesting = not cashing the chips and taking them home. Not really a thing at homegames though. It’s done at casinos with the smaller denoms.
OP
OP
I’m a bit conflicted about straddles. If straddles are allowed I think that must be known beforehand. Asking ”everybody ok with stradlles?”, whilst playing is not ok imo. No one wants to be the party pooper and people will likely say yes even though they’d prefer not to.
I totally understand. Like I said, it works at my game because it's occasional. If it ever got to the point where straddles were regular, I'd restrict them. Because in the end, straddles are dumb and all they do is raise the stakes.
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
