Wait a minute... are you saying you're not allowed to top up when playing checkers?That's poker. If he doesn't like it, tell him to play checkers.
Wait a minute... are you saying you're not allowed to top up when playing checkers?That's poker. If he doesn't like it, tell him to play checkers.
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.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.
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.
Just establish a minimum amount about which to bother the bank (different that the minimum buy-in).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)
It's definitely not communication. I lay the rules out clear as day every time, it's just him protecting his stack.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.
Oooooooh one of those. So there is some wallet jealousy at play too.It's definitely not communication. I lay the rules out clear as day every time, it's just him protecting his stack.
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.Just establish a minimum amount about which to bother the bank (different that the minimum buy-in).
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").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.
It's definitely not communication. I lay the rules out clear as day every time, it's just him protecting his stack.
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").
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)
Was wondering why he carried so much change as well, just because his players like it?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.
They could be different (not necessarily).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.
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.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.
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.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.