Topping up during cash game

JScott

3 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2019
Messages
632
Reaction score
1,292
Location
Whistler, BC
That said, why were your previous add-ons only to $50 and then suddenly you are going to $70? Not saying this is against the rules but if your friend noticed the change and got jarred by it, maybe he didn't understand what "$100 max" means? Maybe he thought it meant $100 limit per player for the whole game, and this last buy in put you over that? Would kind of explain the comment that you should be put at a disadvantage for losing. I can see previous experience in tournament informing that opinion too.
I added on to $70 because at that time there were multiple effective stacks of $70 or more. Technically I should have added on to $100 at that point to cover everyone.
 

JZPdub

Pair
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
120
Reaction score
270
Location
New York
To me, this is all an issue of communication.
Topping off is definitely allowed in cash games. But (and especially at lower stakes and for people who play tournaments) folks may not realize this and it's important to let folks know at the start of the night what is allowed and isn't.

So at the start of the game, especially if you have new players, just lay out the rules.
"Buy in is X
Buy in as many times as you like.
At any point you can top-off your stack up to the max buy-in.
Any questions?"

If people aren't comfortable with that, there are lots of variations on this that can usually make almost everyone happy.
For instance, in our games, we have a $60 - $100 buy-in (same parameters for if you've lost all your chips). We've also established the house rule that you can't top up until you are below $20, at which point you can top up to $100 total. This is primarily from a game admin standpoint (not having to get more chips every 3 hands) as opposed to any big stack/small stack issues, but it works for us.
 

shorticus

Full House
Tourney Director
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 6, 2019
Messages
4,438
Reaction score
4,284
Location
Cajun Country
I agree with everything @JustinInMN gathers from the comments.

With that being said, when your buddy said, you should be at a disadvantage in the game, I would have responded, “I am at a disadvantage, I’m stuck $40 in this damn game!” :ROFL: :ROFLMAO:
 

TheBigTater

4 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2014
Messages
5,482
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Deep In The Bible Belt
Question, what do you do with the guy that wants to top off to the max every other hand. This guy has serious FOMO and can't stand to not have the max allowed every hand. Sure you want the extra cash on the table but do you as a host/bank want to deal with this type of player every/every other hand. When you are banking/hosting and trying to play it can get to be a royal pain in the ass. These types are usually hyper aggressive so when they are taking beats it's happening all the time.

I sometimes would prefer to set some type of limit to when someone can top off. Like when they drop below half the max buyin (ie: below $50 in a $100 max buyin)
 

JustinInMN

Full House
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
3,754
Reaction score
4,201
Location
Burnsville, MN
Question, what do you do with the guy that wants to top off to the max every other hand. This guy has serious FOMO and can't stand to not have the max allowed every hand.

I don't have this problem, but I do have the rule that all add ons have to be at least of the minimum buy in for the game, which I usually set pretty low at 20xBB.

So in a 0.50-0.50 60 max game, the minimum is 10, they have to fall below 50 to get an add on.
 

Coyote

4 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2018
Messages
5,490
Reaction score
7,962
Location
Athens, Greece
Question, what do you do with the guy that wants to top off to the max every other hand. This guy has serious FOMO and can't stand to not have the max allowed every hand. Sure you want the extra cash on the table but do you as a host/bank want to deal with this type of player every/every other hand. When you are banking/hosting and trying to play it can get to be a royal pain in the ass. These types are usually hyper aggressive so when they are taking beats it's happening all the time.

I sometimes would prefer to set some type of limit to when someone can top off. Like when they drop below half the max buyin (ie: below $50 in a $100 max buyin)
Just establish a minimum amount about which to bother the bank (different that the minimum buy-in).
 

JScott

3 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2019
Messages
632
Reaction score
1,292
Location
Whistler, BC
To me, this is all an issue of communication.
Topping off is definitely allowed in cash games. But (and especially at lower stakes and for people who play tournaments) folks may not realize this and it's important to let folks know at the start of the night what is allowed and isn't.

So at the start of the game, especially if you have new players, just lay out the rules.
"Buy in is X
Buy in as many times as you like.
At any point you can top-off your stack up to the max buy-in.
Any questions?"

If people aren't comfortable with that, there are lots of variations on this that can usually make almost everyone happy.
For instance, in our games, we have a $60 - $100 buy-in (same parameters for if you've lost all your chips). We've also established the house rule that you can't top up until you are below $20, at which point you can top up to $100 total. This is primarily from a game admin standpoint (not having to get more chips every 3 hands) as opposed to any big stack/small stack issues, but it works for us.
It's definitely not communication. I lay the rules out clear as day every time, it's just him protecting his stack.
 

PlayerADK

Straight
Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2019
Messages
955
Reaction score
1,700
Location
Upstate NY
Sounds like they don't know how cash games work - teach them and they just have to accept it.

"That guy bluffed me... i didn't like it. Shouldn't be allowed"

e/ the only time where I think this could be an issue is if they have to top up every 2 hands. Small amounts, etc - causing delay in game.
 

JustinInMN

Full House
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
3,754
Reaction score
4,201
Location
Burnsville, MN
It's definitely not communication. I lay the rules out clear as day every time, it's just him protecting his stack.
Oooooooh one of those. So there is some wallet jealousy at play too.

Then yes, I am more in on the theory this guy is playing scared money and trying to tilt the game his way.
 

JustinInMN

Full House
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
3,754
Reaction score
4,201
Location
Burnsville, MN
Just establish a minimum amount about which to bother the bank (different that the minimum buy-in).
I mean you can make them different amounts. To keep them the same makes sense to me if it is a question of "bothering" the bank. If I am going to say it's okay for a player to buy in for the last $10 he has before the ATM, I'm not going to say no to a player that wants to add on $10 either.
 

Coyote

4 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2018
Messages
5,490
Reaction score
7,962
Location
Athens, Greece
I mean you can make them different amounts. To keep them the same makes sense to me if it is a question of "bothering" the bank. If I am going to say it's okay for a player to buy in for the last $10 he has before the ATM, I'm not going to say no to a player that wants to add on $10 either.
Normally not an issue at all; the rule under dicussion might be needed if one has to deal with kindergarten behaviour (repeated cries every hand "mommy, I 'm $10 down").:)
 

JZPdub

Pair
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
120
Reaction score
270
Location
New York
It's definitely not communication. I lay the rules out clear as day every time, it's just him protecting his stack.

Gotcha - wasn't clear on that. So he knows the rule, but is complaining with you following it. Agree with @JustinInMN

Seems like the other player is also being short-sighted on this now. If he got his way, then the response to that would be when you get short stacked to just shove basically any hand, to either double-up or get wiped out and be able to rebuy/top-off. Can only imagine his reaction when you start shoving $20 pre-flop "since I can't top-off".
 

JustinInMN

Full House
Joined
May 23, 2017
Messages
3,754
Reaction score
4,201
Location
Burnsville, MN
Normally not an issue at all; the rule under dicussion might be needed if one has to deal with kindergarten behaviour (repeated cries every hand "mommy, I 'm $10 down").:)

Right, and again, I don't have this problem. (I think most of my players wait until they go down 40BB, some wait even longer.) I just have this rule in place so I can nip the problem if it happens. I was just trying to figure out your rationale why the minimum buy in and minimum add on amounts need to be different? It seems to me I should say yes to both.
 

Schmendr1ck

4 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2014
Messages
5,345
Reaction score
12,000
Location
Orlando, FL
So yeah, agreed with everyone else in this thread: topping off between hands is fine, be clear and make sure all players know you're doing it, yadda yadda.

My big beef with this thread is: Why in the world are you carrying around $2000 in bank cash for a game that probably never has more than a few hundred in the bank? This seems like an unnecessary risk.

$100-200 worth of change to seed the bank, $200 in your pocket for your personal buy-ins, and you're in good shape. Plus, when you rebuy, you have to reach in your pocket, pull money out, and exchange it for chips just like every other player. This helps keep the bank square and also gives the appearance of propriety to the other players.

A perfectly legit game can be spoiled by the appearance of questionable behavior, so hosts and bankers really need to go out of their way to demonstrate that everything is on the up and up. The banker buying his chips out of cash in pocket is one way you can do this.
 

TheDuke

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 4, 2017
Messages
1,649
Reaction score
2,794
Location
Out of position
Question, what do you do with the guy that wants to top off to the max every other hand. This guy has serious FOMO and can't stand to not have the max allowed every hand. Sure you want the extra cash on the table but do you as a host/bank want to deal with this type of player every/every other hand. When you are banking/hosting and trying to play it can get to be a royal pain in the ass. These types are usually hyper aggressive so when they are taking beats it's happening all the time.

I sometimes would prefer to set some type of limit to when someone can top off. Like when they drop below half the max buyin (ie: below $50 in a $100 max buyin)

I'd tell him to just put the cash on the table. In front or on top of his stack so it's clear to everyone that it's in play. Then swap it out for chips when it's convenient to do so.
 

Chipandchair

Flush
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
1,882
Reaction score
2,367
Location
Illinois
So yeah, agreed with everyone else in this thread: topping off between hands is fine, be clear and make sure all players know you're doing it, yadda yadda.

My big beef with this thread is: Why in the world are you carrying around $2000 in bank cash for a game that probably never has more than a few hundred in the bank? This seems like an unnecessary risk.

$100-200 worth of change to seed the bank, $200 in your pocket for your personal buy-ins, and you're in good shape. Plus, when you rebuy, you have to reach in your pocket, pull money out, and exchange it for chips just like every other player. This helps keep the bank square and also gives the appearance of propriety to the other players.

A perfectly legit game can be spoiled by the appearance of questionable behavior, so hosts and bankers really need to go out of their way to demonstrate that everything is on the up and up. The banker buying his chips out of cash in pocket is one way you can do this.
Was wondering why he carried so much change as well, just because his players like it?
 

Coyote

4 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 28, 2018
Messages
5,490
Reaction score
7,962
Location
Athens, Greece
Right, and again, I don't have this problem. (I think most of my players wait until they go down 40BB, some wait even longer.) I just have this rule in place so I can nip the problem if it happens. I was just trying to figure out your rationale why the minimum buy in and minimum add on amounts need to be different? It seems to me I should say yes to both.
They could be different (not necessarily).
E.g. 120BB max, 40BB min, 20BB min amount to bother the bank.
 

JScott

3 of a Kind
Supporting Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2019
Messages
632
Reaction score
1,292
Location
Whistler, BC
I carry around a couple thousand in cash normally. If bringing $2k to a friends house was a security risk, I’d have make different friends. Not to sound like a dick, but while the poker we play is low stakes, the group is anything but. So you never know if it’s going to go off and turn into a big game, and I like to have all chips covered. That’s just my thing, and frankly no ones concern but my own. :)

but that’s not really the issue here, it’s been solved, as has the other concern some of the guys had.
 

Taghkanic

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
3,973
Reaction score
4,022
Location
Hudson Valley, NY
It’s not your fault that the guy doesn’t understand how cash games work.

...

But even if you start with 2K of your own money in the bank (which seems totally unnecessary), players probably prefer to see the host put their buy-in money on the table and count out the purchased chips next to it, just like anyone else, before adding the buy-in to the box.

And honestly, rather than mixing your bank into the box, I would suggest just letting them know you have all the chips covered just in case. Or if you really want them to see it, put that bank in bands or an envelope or something rather than mixing it with the buy-ins. It never needs to be touched, unless you make an error counting out chips that has to be covered later.
 
Last edited:

Natskule

Two Pair
Joined
Apr 9, 2016
Messages
317
Reaction score
492
Location
Belgrade, Nebraska
It’s not your fault that the guy doesn’t understand how cash games work.

...

But even if you start with 2K of your own money in the bank (which seems totally unnecessary), players probably prefer to see the host put their buy-in money on the table and count out the purchased chips next to it, just like anyone else, before adding the buy-in to the box.

And honestly, rather than mixing your bank into the box, I would suggest just letting them know you have all the chips covered just in case. Or if you really want them to see it, put that bank in bands or an envelope or something rather than mixing it with the buy-ins. It never needs to be touched, unless you make an error counting out chips that has to be covered later.
Guess I don't understand what the $2000 is for. That can't be all for change, only need a hundred or so for that.
 

DoubleEagle

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Jul 7, 2015
Messages
4,344
Reaction score
6,152
Location
Salina, KS
Our group used to have buy-in/top-off limits of $300 for our $1/2 game. Now, you can buy in for whatever you want. Most everyone buys in for $300. Want to top off? Add whatever you want. No one cares any longer.
 

cpac54

Full House
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 8, 2018
Messages
3,761
Reaction score
7,644
Location
Zurich, Switzerland
Our group used to have buy-in/top-off limits of $300 for our $1/2 game. Now, you can buy in for whatever you want. Most everyone buys in for $300. Want to top off? Add whatever you want. No one cares any longer.
Yeah, we do it similarly. We run a $0.50/1.00 game with a max $200 buy-in. Most people buy in for $150 or $200. Top-ups up to whatever the largest stack at the table is. We thought about limited top-ups to some percentage of the big stack, but the group seems to prefer it the other way and so that's what we've stuck with.
 
Top Bottom