Short version: I’ve been thinking about how (and whether) to host a cash game where the stakes progressively increase over the course of the night. It would be great to get some feedback. This might go something like:
Long version: The impetus for even contemplating this idea is to try to resolve a longstanding tension between regulars who prefer cash, and those who prefer tourneys... and also to incorporate players who work too late to make it for a 7 pm tourney, but sometimes can make cash later (too late for blinding into the tourney to make sense).
Secondarily, it is meant to also address a discrepancy between half the regs who are bankrolled for $2/5 (or even higher), and the other half who are not.
For almost a decade, we’ve had a two-table tourney which begins at 7 pm. Current tourney stakes are $100 buy-in, including a $10 bounty chip, with an optional $20 add-on after four levels—no rebuys.
Once tables combine, the empty table becomes the cash game, if there is enough interest. Generally out of 14-16 players we’ll get 6-9 for cash. It rarely goes off before 9:30 pm, sometimes later. There are about 3 guys sometimes show up late only for cash. We usually start at 1/2 for a couple hours while short-handed, then bump things up to 2/5 later in the evening as stacks get deeper. The game can run as late as 3 am, or typically about five hours.
Among other things, a problem arises if several of the cash regulars bust the tourney early, and decide they don't want to hang out for 2+ hours for cash to start. This impoverishes or sometimes even kills the cash game.
Among the tourney players, about half of them never (or almost never) play cash. Some of them seem scared of it, even though they might actually be better off playing cash... I’m thinking of the types of guys who play too many hands, who sometimes build big stacks early, but lack the patience to go the distance and end up busting before the money. Without encouraging hit-and-run behavior, the case could be made that if they got up big they could at least cash out before they went completely broke.
The cash-averse players seem to prefer tourneys mainly because tourneys cap their potential losses: They know that at worst they can’t lose more than $120 in an evening. They tend to be the less-successful players. I have tried to explain to them that they could buy in for $120 at cash and not buy back in if they bust—meaning their risk is the same as the tourney—to no avail.
My thinking is that there might be some way to structure a cash game so that we could ditch the small tourney, playing only cash with stakes which appeal to the widest range of regulars. The provisional structure above is my first stab at trying to make cash play more like a tourney (initially at least) for those who are reluctant to try it. At a $120 buy-in at 50c/$1, they would have 120BB... Or could play a short stack of 60BB twice.
The rationale for keeping the max buy-ins a little shallow would be to give the lower-bankrolled players a chance to learn (and develop a taste for) cash play without getting in over their heads. Players who don’t care for lower stakes could just show up later, and buy in deeper once stacks have built up.
Other wrinkles could be worked in. The game is unraked, but an amount could be reserved per buy-in ($5-10?) to be pooled over time for a periodic tournament for which players would qualify by playing a certain number of cash games. I also might want to institute some sort of disincentive for playing less than a couple hours (besides getting disinvited), but that seems hard to structure.
Now, this may not work at all—may be a nonstarter. Among other arguments against it, our game has survived almost a decade despite this dichotomy among the players. But I’ve seen a couple other threads about hybrid tourney/cash games, so I figured I’d throw it out there for discussion. Anyone tried anything like this?
- Hour One: 50c/$1
- Hour Two: $1/$2
- Hour Three: $1/3
- Hour Four+: $2/5
Long version: The impetus for even contemplating this idea is to try to resolve a longstanding tension between regulars who prefer cash, and those who prefer tourneys... and also to incorporate players who work too late to make it for a 7 pm tourney, but sometimes can make cash later (too late for blinding into the tourney to make sense).
Secondarily, it is meant to also address a discrepancy between half the regs who are bankrolled for $2/5 (or even higher), and the other half who are not.
For almost a decade, we’ve had a two-table tourney which begins at 7 pm. Current tourney stakes are $100 buy-in, including a $10 bounty chip, with an optional $20 add-on after four levels—no rebuys.
Once tables combine, the empty table becomes the cash game, if there is enough interest. Generally out of 14-16 players we’ll get 6-9 for cash. It rarely goes off before 9:30 pm, sometimes later. There are about 3 guys sometimes show up late only for cash. We usually start at 1/2 for a couple hours while short-handed, then bump things up to 2/5 later in the evening as stacks get deeper. The game can run as late as 3 am, or typically about five hours.
Among other things, a problem arises if several of the cash regulars bust the tourney early, and decide they don't want to hang out for 2+ hours for cash to start. This impoverishes or sometimes even kills the cash game.
Among the tourney players, about half of them never (or almost never) play cash. Some of them seem scared of it, even though they might actually be better off playing cash... I’m thinking of the types of guys who play too many hands, who sometimes build big stacks early, but lack the patience to go the distance and end up busting before the money. Without encouraging hit-and-run behavior, the case could be made that if they got up big they could at least cash out before they went completely broke.
The cash-averse players seem to prefer tourneys mainly because tourneys cap their potential losses: They know that at worst they can’t lose more than $120 in an evening. They tend to be the less-successful players. I have tried to explain to them that they could buy in for $120 at cash and not buy back in if they bust—meaning their risk is the same as the tourney—to no avail.
My thinking is that there might be some way to structure a cash game so that we could ditch the small tourney, playing only cash with stakes which appeal to the widest range of regulars. The provisional structure above is my first stab at trying to make cash play more like a tourney (initially at least) for those who are reluctant to try it. At a $120 buy-in at 50c/$1, they would have 120BB... Or could play a short stack of 60BB twice.
The rationale for keeping the max buy-ins a little shallow would be to give the lower-bankrolled players a chance to learn (and develop a taste for) cash play without getting in over their heads. Players who don’t care for lower stakes could just show up later, and buy in deeper once stacks have built up.
Other wrinkles could be worked in. The game is unraked, but an amount could be reserved per buy-in ($5-10?) to be pooled over time for a periodic tournament for which players would qualify by playing a certain number of cash games. I also might want to institute some sort of disincentive for playing less than a couple hours (besides getting disinvited), but that seems hard to structure.
Now, this may not work at all—may be a nonstarter. Among other arguments against it, our game has survived almost a decade despite this dichotomy among the players. But I’ve seen a couple other threads about hybrid tourney/cash games, so I figured I’d throw it out there for discussion. Anyone tried anything like this?
Last edited:
but if I'm a tournament player I don't like the structure due to your not playing to win a huge payout, your still in a cash game with higher stakes throughout the night. As a cash game player imo this is a nightmare, one of the reasons I like cash games is bc the blinds don't go up, and I can get settled in and play my game.
at the end there...
