Am I being ridiculous? (2 Viewers)

[Jimulacrum]

This is the part that's collusion. Pots get magically "capped" before all in if it's between his friends. Where as other players are putting their whole stacks in. If this description is correct, what the host is doing is extremely unethical and @BadCardHaver should be avoiding this game.

I'd say this is potentially collusion IF this is the case. If it's an option open to everyone, though, it's merely silly IMO. Looks like OP has had it offered and has turned it down, so host doesn't really offer anymore. But I bet he'd do it if OP were to ask again.

I've been in games where people sometimes want to end the hand and run it out for a fixed fee. Just because it caps the pot size doesn't mean it isn't gambling. They're choosing to forgo all the other betting—i.e., the skill element of the remaining rounds—and just see what the cards do. Let chance decide. Gamble. It's like a partial flip.

I get if this isn't your cup of tea, but in general it's best to indulge players like this—who, for example, 3-bet ragged trash in Super Hold'em. It doesn't really cost you anything to just run a hand out for a fixed fee, and if they allow you to do it selectively, you may even find some advantage in it.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

Nope. My suggestion is stay away.

I guess you are having issues that I am disparaging the host for this. Perhaps you are right that there isn't anything unfair here, but at first glansce to a newbie, it would look like that.

Sure, very fair perception. Appreciate meeting in the middle; we can both totally say this way of playing/hosting sucks haha. I seem to be getting hung up on intent recently.

 

[BadCardHaver]

Blinds are $0.50/1. A raise of $3 is on the small side. Going to $10 total over $3 is a small reraise that practically invites you to come play. The fact that you call it a "very large" raise and consider it an "Of course" fold says a lot.

I said it was large for this game. These guys aren't particularly gambly, There is a lot of limping and almost no 3 betting pre flop. I am the most aggressive guy at the game. A $10 raise from the host or the 2 regs is wayyyy above their standard line.

I have no problem with action. As stated repeatedly, my objection is to the getting heads up and then running it twice while limiting the action with one small bet.

 

[Jimulacrum]

A $10 raise from the host or the 2 regs is wayyyy above their standard line.

Right, but it wasn't just a raise. It was a reraise, so of course it would be larger.

How deep are stacks in this game?

 

[BadCardHaver]

Reading threads like this reminds me of how lucky I am to host and play in another game where all the players know each other and don't try to pull this angly/soft play collusion crap. I'd have zero tolerance for it in a home game. I'd stop going if this happened in a low stakes game. This is shit I'd expect at a casino with randoms, which is why I don't like playing in casinos mostly.

I honestly do not believe it is intentional collusion. The host claims to like 'action' as his reason for wanting to play other games, but is actually a pretty tight player. He is about 10 yrs younger than everyone else in the game and I really believe he saw running it twice on TV or read about circus games in a forum and thinks it makes him look like a savvy player.

I don't know the host outside of poker, but the 2 regs are good friends with him. I am going to talk to one of the 2 regs tonight and get his take on how the host will react if I bring it up with him. I want to tread carefully, because I do like playing with these guys.

I believe it is ignorance, not collusion.

 

[BadCardHaver]

Right, but it wasn't just a raise. It was a reraise, so of course it would be larger.

How deep are stacks in this game?

This is not a loose game and even a $10 reraise is very rare. In a card room or online I wouldn't blink at this action.

Almost everyone buys in for $200.

 

[Jimulacrum]

This is not a loose game and even a $10 reraise is very rare. In a card room or online I wouldn't blink at this action.

Almost everyone buys in for $200.

Interesting. It's like the players want gambley mechanisms in their game but are reluctant to play for significant money on any one hand.

I think I'm starting to agree with the sentiment that the host maybe saw professional players doing some stuff and wanted to do it in his game.

Also, circus games are amazing, but you gotta have a well-oiled machine (or a pro dealer) to play a lot of hands per hour. Otherwise it's 5–10 minutes a hand.

That said, if these guys are as inexperienced at these games as they seem, you should be able to squeeze a lot of blood out of the circus hands when they happen. Circus games tend to have a lot of nuance and decision points where you can glean an advantage, and people's skill levels tend to be much lower than in Hold'em. Get good at those games and you will own these guys.

 

[JustinInMN]

I think I'm starting to agree with the sentiment that the host maybe saw professional players doing some stuff and wanted to do it in his game.

Perhaps it's possible he just doesn't know how run it twice is supposed to work? That all-in is generally a requirement.

 

[upNdown]

That all-in is generally a requirement.

For what it’s worth, this is the first time I’ve ever heard of it being run multiple times without somebody being all in. Not to say it’s never happened. But since OP is asking, I’m comfortable saying that it just isn’t done. And I wouldn’t even say it’s a matter of rules, it just isn’t done.
Yeah a host is entitled to run his game how he wants and the guests are free to not play. But each guy throwing in 10bb pre-flop and agreeing to check it down and run it twice? And does that mean two full boards? Or just two turns and rivers? Wait, I don’t care. Because

 

[BadCardHaver]

Interesting. It's like the players want gambley mechanisms in their game but are reluctant to play for significant money on any one hand.

I think I'm starting to agree with the sentiment that the host maybe saw professional players doing some stuff and wanted to do it in his game.

Also, circus games are amazing, but you gotta have a well-oiled machine (or a pro dealer) to play a lot of hands per hour. Otherwise it's 5–10 minutes a hand.

That said, if these guys are as inexperienced at these games as they seem, you should be able to squeeze a lot of blood out of the circus hands when they happen. Circus games tend to have a lot of nuance and decision points where you can glean an advantage, and people's skill levels tend to be much lower than in Hold'em. Get good at those games and you will own these guys.

Yep, my objection to the night where it was 90-95% circus out of nowhere was the incredible time suck and it literally ran off 3 or 4 semi regs that used to show. Most of the players can handle it, but just about every time, there are 1 or 2 relative newbies or very casual players that aren't even savvy hold em players. Mixing in random games they are likely to misplay or not understand makes them not want to come back. The game is pretty much down to the host and 2 regs, plus myself and whoever I can bring. It is and should be a social game, and playing outside any new or rec players comfort zone kills interest. Every game the last few months has been a struggle to get more than 5 or 6 players.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Yep, my objection to the night where it was 90-95% circus out of nowhere was the incredible time suck and it literally ran off 3 or 4 semi regs that used to show. Most of the players can handle it, but just about every time, there are 1 or 2 relative newbies or very casual players that aren't even savvy hold em players. Mixing in random games they are likely to misplay or not understand makes them not want to come back. The game is pretty much down to the host and 2 regs, plus myself and whoever I can bring. It is and should be a social game, and playing outside any new or rec players comfort zone kills interest. Every game the last few months has been a struggle to get more than 5 or 6 players.

Yeah, it can be tough keeping a circus-only game together on a regular basis. I used to play in @bergs' game when he was local to me, and though the core player base was all comfortable with circus games (all night, nosebleed stacks), new players didn't always adapt so well.

 

[Jimulacrum]

For what it’s worth, this is the first time I’ve ever heard of it being run multiple times without somebody being all in. Not to say it’s never happened. But since OP is asking, I’m comfortable saying that it just isn’t done. And I wouldn’t even say it’s a matter of rules, it just isn’t done.
Yeah a host is entitled to run his game how he wants and the guests are free to not play. But each guy throwing in 10bb pre-flop and agreeing to check it down and run it twice? And does that mean two full boards? Or just two turns and rivers? Wait, I don’t care. Because
View attachment 1195255

I've seen people agree to run it out for a set fee after one of them had folded and pot was awarded. It's just an independent side bet they're choosing to do between themselves. Small waste of time for the other players, perhaps, but harmless. In theory you could run it more than once in a spot like that.

But of course, that's different than agreeing on one last $10 bet and running the rest twice for the whole pot, with no one all-in. It's not grossly unfair or anything, but it's weird and understandably off-putting to some players, and I wouldn't want it to happen in my game.

 

[BadCardHaver]

Interesting. It's like the players want gambley mechanisms in their game but are reluctant to play for significant money on any one hand.

100%. We were playing 5 or 6 handed one night and the host was talking about wanting more action by playing circus games. My response was "We're playing short handed. Expand your normal range and 3 or 4 bet more and you will have more action" and he just kind of blinked back at me.

 

[Machine]

100%. We were playing 5 or 6 handed one night and the host was talking about wanting more action by playing circus games. My response was "We're playing short handed. Expand your normal range and 3 or 4 bet more and you will have more action" and he just kind of blinked back at me.

Yeah basically your suggesting playing a losing strategy as a means of increasing the action. I’d disregard the suggestion as well and my strategy is already a losing one for holdem.

I want to pick on you because you’re in the limelight and seem to be able to take it.

What is the aversion to playing a more complex game than the most basic form of poker? ( serious question )

It sounds like you’re on even ground.

 

[Jimulacrum]

100%. We were playing 5 or 6 handed one night and the host was talking about wanting more action by playing circus games. My response was "We're playing short handed. Expand your normal range and 3 or 4 bet more and you will have more action" and he just kind of blinked back at me.

A good middle ground might be to play low-intensity circus variants like Double Board Omaha or Double Board Hold'em. Doesn't take much longer to deal, no drawing rounds, no weirdness, but man, that second board can bring a lot of action.

 

[BadCardHaver]

Yeah basically your suggesting playing a losing strategy as a means of increasing the action. I’d disregard the suggestion as well and my strategy is already a losing one for holdem.

I want to pick on you because you’re in the limelight and seem to be able to take it.

What is the aversion to playing a more complex game than the most basic form of poker? ( serious question )

It sounds like you’re on even ground.

My aversion has to do with slowing the game down and running off new players. As I stated before we have played 6 hands in an hour before.

If we were getting a full table or more every time (like used to happen) I'd be down with it. There are now players that stopped showing altogether, or that only show the once a year or so when we do a NLHE tourney. It's hard enough to get new players, no reason to run them off. I think the once an orbit dealers choice helps introduce some of those games without actively discouraging new or casual players.

I even tried to set up an online Omaha tourney on a few Sunday afternooons, to supplement or normal Mon - Thu hold 'em tournament and let guys learn Omaha with low-ish stakes ($40). We never had more than 4 people play. This isn't the player pool for that.