Something changed in this cash game (1 Viewer)

Taghkanic

4 of a Kind
Supporter
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
6,943
Reaction score
9,598
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
For a couple years, I’ve played in a 2/5 cash game in a private home. There are usually between 6-9 players, with a pool of only about 12 regulars. Pretty much everyone has been friends for even longer than that, and so we’re well familiar with each others’ tendencies, frequencies, and other poker habits. It’s an enjoyable group and a tough game. Unlike typical casino 2/5 games, people rarely buy in for more than $500 at a time, often for more like only 50-60 BB at a clip.

In the past few months, something changed, which has skewed the game dynamics tremendously, and also raised some ethical questions.

One regular—a fun, loose, generally losing but by no means stupid player—has started dropping WAY more money into the game than he ever did before. It used to be that a bad night for him was in the $500-$1,000 range. Now he’s bringing a ton more cash, rebuying repeatedly, playing more recklessly, and losing more like $1,500-$3,000. In one session that I missed, he reportedly was stuck five grand. Maybe that’s not exceptional for some casino games, but I consider it a lot for a friendly 2/5 home game.

Some of us have been discussing this privately... It’s been a big windfall for the rest of the field, but it’s also kind of worrisome. Did he come into a bunch of money we didn’t hear about? Can he really afford these losses? Does he have a problem? Should we say something? (I know he has the same job as before, not a hugely high-paying one, and not one where the salary would have gone up substantially in recent months.) His attitude and generally happy-go-lucky outlook doesn’t seem different, just the volume of cash he’s dropping, and the increased lack of discipline in his game.

In addition to those more important questions—which raise personal concerns for someone we consider a casual but longtime poker friend—there is also a big shift in the game dynamics as a result.

Not only is this already-loose player playing even looser, but by bloating so many pots, he has induced a lot more loose action from the rest of the regs, chasing that (relatively) easy money. Guys who used to manage their stacks and buy-ins more carefully are taking more shots, and buying back in if they bust for higher amounts than usual, knowing they have a decent chance of recouping their losses.

I tend to play pretty TAGgy, occasionally exploiting that image to bluff/steal pots I shouldn’t. Unlike the rest of the field, I’ve tightened up a bit more since the new free-for-all atmosphere is radically increasing the variance in a game where I’d always been a solid if small winner. Now, if I enter a hand and stick around postflop, I can take a lot more pots down right away, but the winnings are smaller than before, because people are assuming “He must have it.”

So I’m contemplating both (A) the question of how soon/whether to talk with this poker friend off-table fabou his recent spews, and whether everything’s OK; and (B) how to adjust my play to the new economics of this particular game. My feeling on the latter question is that I should at least open up my own range a little, as it will likely still be stronger than the field, and it will be quite a while before my existing TAG image wears off.
 
5k/night is a whole lot for your average working stiff. I would talk to him or have whoever knows him best talk to him and make sure all is well.

As far as gameplay I would loosen up a bit but stay tighter than the feild. Punish them with your good hands as they probably dont like folding.
 
As a general rule playing opposite of the table is solid strategy. The more loose they get the the stronger your range will be against them. Mix in a few more hands, but not too many.

$5k in one night is a lot for for a typical $2/5 game let alone a game that sounds like it has played more like a deep $1/2 game in th past.

If the rest of the players are concerned you may want to lower the blinds to $1/2 and cap the buy in to $300. If he is still blowing through a lot of buy-ins there isn’t much else to do game wise.

Maybe he sold his old baseball cards or won a decent amount on a lotto ticket. As long as he has the cash and isn’t asking to borrow or go on the books I wouldn’t get too worried yet.

Like you said his attitude hasn’t changed.
 
Talk to him privately. Just say you've noticed a change, you want to make sure it's still fun and you don't want him to be jamming himself up. After that, it's on him.
 
Are the chips denominated? Maybe he’s confusing the higher value chips for lower ones? (I kid, I kid :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:)

I generally enjoy games that are looser and cash more free flowing, it’s a great spot to cultivate a splashy image, but actually tighten up and only commit serious money with the goods. That said, I’d check with him to make sure everything is OK and he’s comfortable with the sums that are moving around. One recommendation might be to Lower the blinds to $1/2 or $1/3 with a $500 cap to allow everybody to play a little deeper. Some of
My favorite games are our $1/1 $500 or $800 cap games where players can sit deep and get a lot of postflop play in without having hugely bloated pots and short effective stacks.
 
I have a number of players in my extended circle who have either a high hourly income (lawyers & doctors) or have a huge net worth ($10,000,000+) or both. Some are tightwads others don't get excited unless they are betting high value chips. People who drop five figures in a casino might not give a hoot about smaller losses in a friendly poker game.

The first thing I would wonder is if the guy can easily afford $3,000+ plus losses. If so, then he likely doesn't have a problem. And if he does have a problem, it will be far bigger than an occasional poker game.

The other side of the coin is how the whale affects the rest of the players. Sure it is +EV playing vs the whale if you can play properly and withstand the variance. Given the description of the "old" version of the game, I expect there are players who don't much care for the new, bigger game. This could become a big problem that the host should get on top of sooner than later.

Making matters worse, the original poster is not the host. I suggest a cautious word in private with the host and see what he thinks. I faced this sort of problem several times over the years and ended up with three different games I host - a $20 buy in $0.25/$0.50, a $100 buy in $1/$1 game and an almost unlimited buy in $1/$2 game that can get pretty large/deep. Very few players in my base play all three games.

DrStrange
 
I don’t mean to sound callous, but how much to you like this guy? Your group sounds exactly like my old $1/2 occasionally $2/5 group. We all played together for many many years and it was a tough game just like you describe. Some of the guys I think of as my friends I play poker with and some are just poker friends. If it was a friend I play poker with I would say something. If it’s just a poker friend I probably wouldn’t get involved.

We had a similar situation a couple years ago after we “got the band back together” after a 4 year break. The game was also different than before. It was always a bit loose but the buyins and rebuys were much higher this time. One guy who is a “poker friend” dropped about $5000 in the course of about two months; in two $1/2 games and one $2/5 game. He was always a slight loser but not a stupid player..just like your friend.

I like the guy but he started talking a lot of weird shit. We are all huge ball breakers but he started basically making up stories about our old games. Like how much money he used to win and how much others, including me, used to lose. I don’t know if he was embarrassed or what but that neither of those things are true. It kinda of pissed me off and weirded me out a little at the same time. I kind of felt bad for him but his mouth made me almost glad he was losing. Unfortunately the game has been on ice for almost two years but I probably wouldn’t have said anything to him either way. He is a big boy.
 
I don’t mean to sound callous, but how much to you like this guy?


I like him: Fun to play with, good humored, never mean-spirited, knows the game, always the one who in a complicated multi-way all-in quickly figures out the side pots/splits, and gets it right. I seldom see him outside poker, but do consider him a casual but valued friend.
 
Lowering stakes would normally be a good solution, but is a no-go: Several regs have stated firmly that they don’t want to play 1/2. (I had pointed out some time back that it was kind of weird to play 2/5 when almost no one buys in for more than 50-60 bigs, at least until they get stuck.)
 
Maybe he sold his old baseball cards or won a decent amount on a lotto ticket. As long as he has the cash and isn’t asking to borrow or go on the books I wouldn’t get too worried yet.

I wish my baseball cards were enough to lose 3K a night at cards.

Broadly he's right, unless he's borrowing you probably aren't obligated to be too concerned.

But yeah to be honest unless you are big six figure guys, 2-5 is a big money game. I would personally want to be rolled 20-30k to play in that game, which I am not.
 
I would say that only maybe 30% of the regs are really properly rolled for 2/5. Thus the weird short buyins and multiple rebuys, rather than starting deep. (At a casino I would not want to sit down at 2/5 with less than the full 1K, unless I had some specific reason to think shortstacking that particular table was advantageous.) Still everyone seems adamant they want to play 2/5.
 
Lowering stakes would normally be a good solution, but is a no-go: Several regs have stated firmly that they don’t want to play 1/2. (I had pointed out some time back that it was kind of weird to play 2/5 when almost no one buys in for more than 50-60 bigs, at least until they get stuck.)
This is a fascinating phenomenon with some poker players. When my $.25/.50 game started getting established I thought I would invite some of the other guys including the guy I was just talking about. They all said no. I even broke the one guys balls a bit and told him “look, you obviously need some practice. This would be perfect for you.”

But yeah to be honest unless you are big six figure guys, 2-5 is a big money game. I would personally want to be rolled 20-30k to play in that game, which I am not.
One thing I learned early on is that personal income and wealth doesn’t necessarily translate to risk tolerance with money and gambling. Some of the tightest players I’ve met make a lot of money and some of the loosest gamblers I know are working class guys.
 
This is a tough situation with OP not being the host. Putting a whale into a game (who certainly could have something going on off the felt) brings out the sharks. In my mind, this puts strain on a game where everyone has history together.

If this were my game, I'd probably lower the stakes and try to refocus on getting back to a more friendly level. People who are purely about the gamble will leave and will be supplemented with players who don't mind the lower stakes. The rest will piss and moan and ultimately accept the change for the betterment of the game. In turn, the economics of the game return to a reasonable level and folks enjoy themselves more without worrying about taking several mortgage payments from some schmo in one night of cards.
 
One thing I learned early on is that personal income and wealth doesn’t necessarily translate to risk tolerance with money and gambling. Some of the tightest players I’ve met make a lot of money and some of the loosest gamblers I know are working class guys.

Absolutely true. That's why I mean what I would figure I want to be 20-30 buys deep. That seems the right risk for me personally, but this is an extremely personal subject and mileage may vary greatly.

It's also why when I play for big (to me) money it's 20/40 limit. I only play that to take occasional shots, I am properly rolled for 8/16 or 10/20, bit I have only played 1-2 and 1-3 NL in a casino.

My neighborhood game is usually 1-1 and occasionally 1-2.
 
I would have talked to my friend. If not only because it wouldn't be much fun to win from a friend if i knew he couldn't afford it.
 
Problem is I don’t know for sure that he can’t afford it, just suspect that either he can’t, or he has some new (large) source of poker funds. I’m considering approaching him about it, but also don’t want to insult him.
 
Problem is I don’t know for sure that he can’t afford it, just suspect that either he can’t, or he has some new (large) source of poker funds. I’m considering approaching him about it, but also don’t want to insult him.

Your concern is admirable. I had a situation several years ago that sounds very familiar. I handled it by continuing to invite the individual, and by saying nothing, rationalizing that while I liked the guy, and I was aware he had a family, it simply wasn't my place to address what might not be a problem at all.

Let's say for argument's sake that he does have a gambling problem, and he's burning through an inheritance or some other windfall. Unless he is willing to seek help for his problem, he's going to gamble somewhere. If he's going to seek action and invariably lose, he might as well lose it to you and your group.
 
Your concern is admirable. I had a situation several years ago that sounds very familiar. I handled it by continuing to invite the individual, and by saying nothing, rationalizing that while I liked the guy, and I was aware he had a family, it simply wasn't my place to address what might not be a problem at all.

Let's say for argument's sake that he does have a gambling problem, and he's burning through an inheritance or some other windfall. Unless he is willing to seek help for his problem, he's going to gamble somewhere. If he's going to seek action and invariably lose, he might as well lose it to you and your group.
Conversely if he is a friend he might be willing to seek help if you talk to him, before he loses it all. I lean towards saying something politely, especially if he is even a partial friend.
 
Your concern is admirable. I had a situation several years ago that sounds very familiar. I handled it by continuing to invite the individual, and by saying nothing, rationalizing that while I liked the guy, and I was aware he had a family, it simply wasn't my place to address what might not be a problem at all.

Let's say for argument's sake that he does have a gambling problem, and he's burning through an inheritance or some other windfall. Unless he is willing to seek help for his problem, he's going to gamble somewhere. If he's going to seek action and invariably lose, he might as well lose it to you and your group.

This a very true statement. But for some people they will think that they are contributing to the gambling problem even though realistically there is nothing they could do. But I would feel like shit if I asked an alcoholic to go drinking and they got a DUI or worse that night.
 
This a very true statement. But for some people they will think that they are contributing to the gambling problem even though realistically there is nothing they could do. But I would feel like shit if I asked an alcoholic to go drinking and they got a DUI or worse that night.

I struggled with just that... that I (or the group as a whole) was living well off of the misery of this individual. It's not much different than a bar (in your alcoholic example)... bars don't 86 customers just because they have a known drinking problem.

I don't mean to come off that the OP should take advantage of the situation. Just that that's not how he should look at it. And it's even less his concern considering that he isn't the host of the game.
 
I struggled with just that... that I (or the group as a whole) was living well off of the misery of this individual. It's not much different than a bar (in your alcoholic example)... bars don't 86 customers just because they have a known drinking problem.

I don't mean to come off that the OP should take advantage of the situation. Just that that's not how he should look at it. And it's even less his concern considering that he isn't the host of the game.
Someone could try to get him talking about his new spending spree in a positive way with an offhanded comment like "you've been dropping cash like a baller! did you win the lottery or something?" It's low risk/reward since he may just make some general comment to deflect that doesn't provide any verifiable or clear information. Then you'd likely have to have someone else talk to him at another time (high risk/reward) and more directly ask him about the situation. Either way sorry the games turning wonky and hope your friend just had some long lost rich uncle die or something.
 
You definitely run the risk of offending your friend, but if it’s a true friend, he’s worth it. Just do it privately.

To minimize blowback I would be very careful about two things

1) Benchmark to how much he used to play, not what you think he should play. “Surprised you can afford this” is way worse than “this is ramped up a lot from where you used to be”

2) Refer to it as playing with a lot more not losing a lot. “You’re playing with thousands” better than “you’re losing thousands”
 

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.

Back
Top Bottom