I think
@DrDysfunctional 's plan works fine for a 2-table 16 player cash game with a 25c big blind, as far as chip set.
The think I really dislike (I mean,
really dislike) is structuring it as $30 buy-ins and re-buys.
This is not a tournament, it's a cash game. I strongly recommend letting people buy in as they see fit, perhaps with a cap to prevent someone dumping money to bully people (which probably wouldn't happen anyway, but some people feel better with a cap.) If people want to risk more at a time, or risk less at a time, don't force them them to do otherwise. Doing that will cut down the popularity of your cash game.
It seems to me that a lot of players who start out in tourneys and add cash games have the (false) impression that starting a cash game with different stacks is somehow unfair.
It isn't.
In a tournament, if one person started with T1500 in chips and another started with T3000 in chips, that would be unfair - but it's unfair
because of the tournament structure. The fact is that the two chip stacks are both worthless; you only get paid for your placement order when you bust out. In many tournaments, grinding it out by simply folding and just getting blinded off can be a strategic and profitable strategy. And, of course, paying the same entry fee and getting different stack would be unfair.
In a cash game, if one person started with $15 in chips and another started with $30 in chips, those stacks are
not worthless. They are worth $15 and $30. They can each cash out at any time. That's fair. And they bought in for different amounts - the first risked $15, the other risked $30. That's fair. And it doesn't matter in the slightest who busts out first, or if anyone does! If neither busts out, and they end the night with $22 and $23, respectively, the person with $23 isn't "ahead..." actually, the $15 buy-in with $22 is a $7 winner, and the $30 buy-in with $23 is a $7 loser! Because
placement doesn't matter,
bust-outs don't matter. It's a cash game; the chips are worth cash. That's why they're called checks; you can cash them in. If you buy into a cash game and grind it out by simply folding and getting blinded off, you have absolutely no chance of getting ahead; you're simply losing the blinds, one orbit at a time.
The reason for limits to buy-ins at cash games are to protect the players. The low end protects newbs from foolishly buying in with too little to actually play the game. The high end protects the players from someone coming in with huge stacks and bullying, which changes the play of the game. (A table full of good players doesn't actually need "protection" from the bully - rather, they'd all tighten way the hell up, and take turns picking off the bully, who would just lose a lot of money. Everyone's variance gets high. I've seen it happen. But the game sucks; everybody is going super-tight, except the bully, there's not much good poker, and most players have no fun. What you're protecting is the playability of the game.)
I'd advise telling the crew this:
Most low-stakes casino games allow buy-ins of 50 big blinds to 150 big blinds. For example, at $1/$2 tables, most places allow buy-ins from $100 to $300.
At a 25c game, a $25 buy-in is a fairly standard 100 big blind buy-in. We'll allow buy-ins from $15 to $40 (60 big blinds to 160 big blinds.) It keeps the math easy. And a $10 buy-in is a pitifully short-stacked 40 big blinds.
(In my 25c home game, we have a minimum of $10, and no max. People all buy in from $20 to $50. Nobody ever buys in for $10. Occasionally, a newb tries to, and everyone advises against it. When people ask what the buy-in is, I say $20 to $40 is typical.)
Most low-stakes casino games allow top-offs of pretty much any amount people want to add to the table, as long as it doesn't bring their stack over the buy-in limits. I like the same for home games - once you're in the game, you can add $10, $5, $1 if you want, any time. This has never, ever, ever caused a problem for me in many years of hosting home games. (No, I've never had anyone top off for $1. But I've had people top off for whatever was left in their wallet, which was under $10.)
I've found the max limit is entirely unnecessary in my personal home games; it's more of an issue in a public game with a lot of random new people walking up. Most home games have a rule that the max rebuy is the amount in the biggest stack, or half the amount of the biggest stack, or something like that. I've had no max rebuy rule in my micro games for years. In my 25c game, the max rebuy I've seen is $100, which has happened many times... but when it happened, the big stack was always well over $100. I did it, myself, last week... I started in the game with $44 (I buy in with all my small bills to stock the kitty.) Then, when my stack had gotten very small (well below $20), I topped off with another $20. Then, when I busted on an all-in, I re-bought with $60. (Big stacks were already well over that.) Then, when I busted again, I re-bought with $100. (Big stacks were well above that.) I was in for $224, got out for $168. People are rarely into the game for much over $100 - this was the deepest I'd ever gone in my 25c game.
Summary: I think setting min/max buy-ins and rebuy limits in a cash game can protect the players and protect the playability of the game... but fixing the buy-in at a single amount just artificially handicaps the game and the players for no good reason.
