Cash Game cash game-half the biggest stack rule (1 Viewer)

[BGinGA]

This past weekend, we experimented with incremental add-ons (eliminating re-buys) up to the size of the average stack in play.

That allows the player to get into a competitive range, regardless of the big stack's size or an artificial 'maximum re-buy' amount.

 

[Jimulacrum]

This past weekend, we experimented with incremental add-ons (eliminating re-buys) up to the size of the average stack in play.

That allows the player to get into a competitive range, regardless of the big stack's size or an artificial 'maximum re-buy' amount.

That's actually not a bad idea. Probably simpler to figure than it seems too. Just keep track of total chips in play and do a bit o' 'rithmetic.

In practice, this should have something close to the effect of half-the-big-stack, except that one person getting a huge stack can't suddenly fling the game into the stratosphere.

I'm a little confused by what you mean by "eliminating rebuys," though.

 

[pltrgyst]

This past weekend, we experimented with incremental add-ons (eliminating re-buys) up to the size of the average stack in play....

And your players didn’t drive you nuts adding-on every time they lost a hand and dropped below the average?
And then everyone else adding-on up to the new average, ad infinitum?

 

[DoubleEagle]

For years, we have played both $1/2 and $1/3, allowing anyone to add-on to their stack at anytime up to the original buy-in max of 100 big blinds. About three months ago, one of our regulars who is also a frequent casino player, asked if we could start allowing re-buys and add-ons up to 1/2 of the largest stack. After a brief discussion, every player agreed. To date, after about six or seven games, it has only been exercised one time. So for us, it has turned out to be a non-event. Most of our regulars buy in for $200 - $300, about half & half. They are not comfortable putting any more than that in play at one time, for both their original buy-in and any re-buys.

 

[MattyMatt]

Question: Can any player add up to the 1/2 stack rule at any time or only when they bust and have to rebuy?

This is a good question I think and it came up on during our last game this past weekend. One player argued that there was no good reason for it. I sort of agree with that.

I do however think there is a practical concern with all of this which is:

And your players didn’t drive you nuts adding-on every time they lost a hand and dropped below the average?
And then everyone else adding-on up to the new average, ad infinitum?

In other words: Are your players the type of players that look at a rule and push it where they want without breaking it, thereby making things harder than they should be? Lose a hand and immediately top-off to always be at the allowed max stack size?

Like DoubleEagle's games ours generally won't bump into these "ceilings". We've had only one player pushing things really far and that's a guy that plays well and prefers to play at buy-ins about 20 times higher than ours. So he simply declared our game went from 0.50BB to $4BB one day. He contributed hundreds that night so... not much of a problem.

But that player has done absolutely nothing to earn that opportunity.

In my home games, the max buy-in is the max re-buy. Doing otherwise kills the original stakes of the game.

I disagree with the first statement a bit. I think since this is not a tournament "earn" doesn't really apply in the sense that the chips were "won". Nobody has "earned" the initial buy-in either in that same sense. I think the other way of looking at it is that if you rebuy to half the big stack then you're not only getting the chance of becoming the big stack yourself, but you're also getting the opportunity to lose all those chips you just put in play. So in another sense you've added chips to the table and your risk of losing them is what has "earned" you the right to play.

The second statement I can't really disagree with. I suppose part of this is dependent on the specific game and crowd.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I disagree with the first statement a bit. I think since this is not a tournament "earn" doesn't really apply in the sense that the chips were "won". Nobody has "earned" the initial buy-in either in that same sense. I think the other way of looking at it is that if you rebuy to half the big stack then you're not only getting the chance of becoming the big stack yourself, but you're also getting the opportunity to lose all those chips you just put in play. So in another sense you've added chips to the table and your risk of losing them is what has "earned" you the right to play.

I feel the same way. You earn the opportunity by risking your own money for it. Maybe you earned that money at poker, maybe at work, maybe by robbing a bank. That's the nature of a cash game. We could make the same argument about "normal" buy-ins. For example, one guy buys in for $40 and the other $80. Did the $80 guy really earn the opportunity to try to bust out the $40 guy without risking a bust himself? No, but he paid for it.

The fact of the matter is that, if you rebuy for half the big stack, you are making the big stack that much more valuable. How? When you play against him, it's only for your effective stack, not his. If you rebuy to half his stack, he has more potential winnings to shoot for, and consequently gets more utility out of that big stack.

That said, it's a fair objection to half-the-big-stack to say that you want to protect your weaker players so that they aren't constantly getting torn down whenever they develop a big stack. But it's not a question of fairness or whether someone has earned a certain stack size. It's just a matter of leaving an opening for your donators to occasionally go home with a big win.

 

[MattyMatt]

I agree.

If there isn't a thread already one could possibly be created for the topic of how to manage a group of players where the size of the game risks growing beyond the competence or bankroll of some players... Interesting stuff...

 

[MacMac]

But that player has done absolutely nothing to earn that opportunity.

Valid point.

I think I agree that the max buy-in should be the max re-load. I think this a better way to maintain the integrity of the game and not risk pushing lower-middle bank roll players out. (For home games at least).

There's a casino by me that lets you sit down at the 1/2 table and you can buy in up to the same amount of the biggest stack. If it's a new 1/2 table/game that they open up, then the max buy in is $300 for all players.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

I have no objection per se to setting max buy-in to half (or all) of the biggest stack. However, I don't do it in my game (.25/.50 $100 max).

For me, setting a maximum buy-in is mainly about protecting weaker players. Allowing stack-based rebuys can make weaker players uncomfortable if they aren't used to casino stakes. It also makes it tougher for those weak players to book that occasional big win that keeps them coming back.

Also, I like to keep a strong social vibe to my game. This is very crowd-specific, but I think my game could lose this if too much money were on the table. Most of my group will happily drink it up and have fun at .25/.50, but if stack sizes look more like 1/2 or 2/5, it's a different game.

 

[moose]

But that player has done absolutely nothing to earn that opportunity.

In my home games, the max buy-in is the max re-buy. Doing otherwise kills the original stakes of the game.

+1

I hate the 1/2 biggest stack rule. When I go to a game I know how much to bring in order to be competitive with the other stacks at the table and how many rebuys I am comfortable losing. With 1/2 the biggest stack rule, the max buyin becomes a random amount that keeps moving higher putting me at a large disadvantage unless I'm willing to add to my stack throughout the evening.

It also disadvantages the player who has earned that big stack. He holds a comfortable lead over the rest of the table and suddenly the rest of the table adds on to half his stack? One allin between any two of those players and his lead is gone. WTF?

Do you ever see a moving limit at a casino game? I haven't. How this became a thing in home games, I don't know.

 

[DoubleEagle]

Do you ever see a moving limit at a casino game?

1/2 biggest stack rule is quite commen in casinos. I have also seen 3/4.

 

[Jimulacrum]

I hate the 1/2 biggest stack rule. When I go to a game I know how much to bring in order to be competitive with the other stacks at the table and how many rebuys I am comfortable losing. With 1/2 the biggest stack rule, the max buyin becomes a random amount that keeps moving higher putting me at a large disadvantage unless I'm willing to add to my stack throughout the evening.

It also disadvantages the player who has earned that big stack. He holds a comfortable lead over the rest of the table and suddenly the rest of the table adds on to half his stack? One allin between any two of those players and his lead is gone. WTF?

There's a tendency a lot of players have to consider a player's stack his "score," and of course that makes sense in most tournaments, because it quite literally is your score.

But in a cash game? Your stack size is not your score. If the max buy-in keeps going higher and higher, you're not at a disadvantage if you don't top off. Relative stack sizes are relevant to strategy, and they're a huge factor in the game dynamics, but there's no special advantage to having a big stack.

The big stack isn't disadvantaged by someone buying up to his stack size. There is no such advantage to speak of; it's just an illusion. The biggest stack doesn't have a "lead" because there's no "lead" in cash games. This becomes pretty obvious when you consider that it's quite possible for the biggest stack at the table to be stuck for more than the value of his stack, and for all the other players to be sitting on a profit despite much shorter stacks.

If anything is your "score" in a cash game, it's your overall profit/loss, across all sessions.

 

[pltrgyst]

Some would opine that the big stack’s “lead” is having the ability to apply more pressure more often.

Others decry “the tyranny of the small stack.”

I feel strongly both ways at various times...

 

[pippen33]

1/2 biggest stack rule is quite commen in casinos. I have also seen 3/4.

I've played in 15-18 rooms in PA, NJ, Del, MD and Vegas and not a single one of them had a rule where you could rebuy for more than table max just because someone had more than that.

As far as the home game, I'm with the many that say "table max is table max". You can buy in for anything between the min and max from the start of the game till the conclusion. There's absolutely no right to be able to buy in for 4X table max just because someone has (fairly within the table rules) ran up his/her stack.

 

[derekdd23]

Our local casino allows buy ins to the Max stack which I am a fan of. Then again our 1-2 PLO and 2-5 NLH are uncapped. Nearly all of the cash games play super deep which is probably terrible for newer players but is super reg friendly.

 

[Rhodeman77]

If I am a big stack and someone adds on or rebuys to 1/2 my stack it makes me happy!!!! Now if I bust him or take a large pot from him I’m winning a lot more money potentially. Good players should want more money on the table, if it is the players pockets it can’t be won.

 

[trigs]

Does the 1/2 the stack rule really "kill the original stakes of the game"? I don't quite see how this is so in a game that starts 200BBs deep or more (if you are starting with shallow stacks then I would understand how it kills the original stakes, but I wouldn't want to play a cash game with shallow stacks, I don't find it very fun).

Once you are playing "deep" stacks, you're pretty much playing the same way I'd imagine. I could be missing something (I do not consider myself a very good poker player after all). Can someone please explain how 200BBs deep play differs from 500BBs+ deep play? I could definitely use the lesson to my benefit because I've recently started using the 1/2 big stack rule on account of players asking for it. I have personally never took advantage of it yet as I haven't seen a good reason to (200BBs is deep enough for me to enjoy playing comfortably), but I'm fine with other players doing it.

 

[Chris Manzoni]

I have a $50 max buy in for my 25c/50c game with a top off to that amount at any time and a reload up to $100 only when felted.

Works pretty well to keep the stakes casual, but what works best is injecting plenty of fixed limit games into the mix.

Our LAGS get a bit frustrated that they can’t wield the big stack and typically these games are where they give back a fair amount of what they’ve won. It weeds out the big bet maniacs pretty quick.

 

[DoubleEagle]

only when felted.

This I don’t understand.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Can someone please explain how 200BBs deep play differs from 500BBs+ deep play?

Once you cross the 200BB threshold, the difference as the stack depths increase isn't nearly as dramatic as, say, the difference between playing 50BB and 100BB deep.

But as you get deeper and deeper, the amounts of the blinds become almost totally insignificant, and the importance of making smart plays in the later rounds skyrockets. More than any other individual factor, it becomes critical to know your opponents and their tendencies very well, especially in the later rounds, because that's going to inform your decisions far more than it would in a shorter-stacked game.

With that in mind, a 500BB game full of nits is worlds away from a 500BB game with a lot of action players. Each game requires its own approach. But as a general takeaway, if you adjust nothing else in your game, take special care to avoid trap hands and RIO problems in a very deep game. The deeper it is, the more important it is for you to dodge unfortunate situations like outkicked pairs, second-nut straights, flushes on paired boards, underfulls, etc. Identify the situations early and don't let yourself get roped in.

 

[saskbull]

very good points. this is what i currently run (copy n paste from group page)

Feature game will be dealers choice .50-.50 pot limit omaha/pot limit pineapple/ no limit texas: $40 min /$80 max buy in (or half of largest stack)


- monthly $50-100 freeze out no limit holdem tourney with $10-20 bounty. 2 tables max
cash game starts when tables combine.

- mixed games night: $.50 ante $1-2 limit game night ( holdem, draw, pineapple, chicago, stud, farmers daughters, bingo, confusion..all the classics)

-the big one (will run upon player request) : 1-2-5 200 min-800max. plo/nlhe rotation

the spread limits definitely draw different crowds. i’ve lost a couple players from either end of the spectrum, but the limit night seems to bring them all together...i need more chips lol

 

[davin]

I make my games simple, you can add on whenever and for how ever much you want, I’ve never had a issue, and my players don’t mind more money on the table!!! Min add on or rebuy is 200, we play 1/3 uncapped

 

[Schmendr1ck]

The big stack isn't disadvantaged by someone buying up to his stack size. There is no such advantage to speak of; it's just an illusion.

This is only true between players of relatively equal skill. As stated in my earlier comment, allowing strong players to match the big stack of a weaker player puts the weaker player at a distinct disadvantage.

 

[saskbull]

i think it boils down to trying to maintain the game for your particular crowd. i’ve got people who wouldn’t flinch at dropping a few grand on any given night, and players who really shouldn’t be playing cards at all (losing $200 really messes up their week/month) i guess i’d put myself and 80% of the players in the middle, where poker bankroll is separate from living cash, but a bad night is noticeable. i might try a fixed max for a couple cycles and see how that goes.

 

[moose]

Does the 1/2 the stack rule really "kill the original stakes of the game"? I don't quite see how this is so in a game that starts 200BBs deep or more (if you are starting with shallow stacks then I would understand how it kills the original stakes, but I wouldn't want to play a cash game with shallow stacks, I don't find it very fun).

Once you are playing "deep" stacks, you're pretty much playing the same way I'd imagine. I could be missing something (I do not consider myself a very good poker player after all). Can someone please explain how 200BBs deep play differs from 500BBs+ deep play? I could definitely use the lesson to my benefit because I've recently started using the 1/2 big stack rule on account of players asking for it. I have personally never took advantage of it yet as I haven't seen a good reason to (200BBs is deep enough for me to enjoy playing comfortably), but I'm fine with other players doing it.

Because a good player who feels he has an advantage over the other players should always buy in for the max. If you come to a game that is $100 max with $600, you have bought 6 buyins which normally would be sufficient to ride out any variance in the game. However if the limit rises to $300, you now have 2 buyins so variance will play a larger role.

 

[Jimulacrum]

This is only true between players of relatively equal skill. As stated in my earlier comment, allowing strong players to match the big stack of a weaker player puts the weaker player at a distinct disadvantage.

I agree with you about protecting weaker players, and the importance of buy-in limits in accomplishing that. I'm just not on board with saying that the rebuy structure itself creates any form of disadvantage that wasn't already there.

It's the weaker player's relative lack of skill that puts him at a distinct disadvantage. Deep stacks amplify it, but they're certainly not the source of the disadvantage, regardless of how the money got on the table. If it's the stronger player with the big stack and the weaker player rebuying deep, then it goes in the opposite direction. The big stack actually benefits from the rebuy in that case, as it gives him more easy money to shoot for, but he's really just benefiting from being better at poker than the other guy.

And in a game where skill is approximately equal between the big stack and the rebuyer? It makes little to no difference. The deeper stacks will amplify the win/loss rate between the two players, but multiplying by zero only gets you more zero.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Because a good player who feels he has an advantage over the other players should always buy in for the max. If you come to a game that is $100 max with $600, you have bought 6 buyins which normally would be sufficient to ride out any variance in the game. However if the limit rises to $300, you now have 2 buyins so variance will play a larger role.

I used to have this exact approach. If I'm playing in a game, it's because I feel I'm a profitable player there, and if so, I buy in for the max.

That is, until I started playing circus games with half-the-big-stack rebuys. I'm sufficiently rolled to play $0.25/0.50 big-bet poker in general, but that doesn't mean I'm sufficiently rolled to rebuy to the max in a HTBS circus game.

I've seen stacks get into the thousands at games like that, enabling rebuys that would be large even by $2/5 standards. I'm not rolled for $2/5 and certainly not eager to put my entire bankroll in play at any game, never mind a $0.25/0.50 game on steroids. Rebuying for a couple hundred at a time is fine, especially when that's 400BB. That's a lot of room to play poker. No need to go all the way to the max.

 

[DrStrange]

I resisted as long as I could. . . . .

In a cash game. the short stack(s) have the advantage over the big stacks, assuming there are plenty of both types at the table. This is 180 degrees different than in a tournament.

The short stacks can be selective and basically play "one pair hands" profitably with ease. The big stacks are well advised to keep an eye on the other big stacks and focus their play on defending vs the big stack and/or targeting the big stack. The shorty stacks are often not worthy of careful attention.

I am thrilled to play in games where I buy in for 100bb-200bb playing against 400bb+ stacks. More so if there is a LAG or two who like to bet it up. This leads to a steady parade of easy situations where I get my stack in play with a sizable +EV. Generally this lead to getting deeper myself and requires an adjustment in play to reflect the stack sizes.

The big stack can't push my short stack around, though they can price out my speculative hands. On the other hand, the short stack is constantly getting all-in or close to in, putting everyone else to the test. Ok, sure I get my blinds stolen. And some of my limps too. But when I take a bite out of a big stack it is going to be a lot larger than 1bb.

Rebuys for huge amounts are generally bad for the long term health of the game. The worst players get burned too often for too much and they just quit playing. Limiting the rebuy amount is good for the weaker players and good for the game.

DrStrange

 

[ReallyGoodUsername]

I resisted as long as I could. . . . .

In a cash game. the short stack(s) have the advantage over the big stacks, assuming there are plenty of both types at the table. This is 180 degrees different than in a tournament.

The short stacks can be selective and basically play "one pair hands" profitably with ease. The big stacks are well advised to keep an eye on the other big stacks and focus their play on defending vs the big stack and/or targeting the big stack. The shorty stacks are often not worthy of careful attention.

I am thrilled to play in games where I buy in for 100bb-200bb playing against 400bb+ stacks. More so if there is a LAG or two who like to bet it up. This leads to a steady parade of easy situations where I get my stack in play with a sizable +EV. Generally this lead to getting deeper myself and requires an adjustment in play to reflect the stack sizes.

The big stack can't push my short stack around, though they can price out my speculative hands. On the other hand, the short stack is constantly getting all-in or close to in, putting everyone else to the test. Ok, sure I get my blinds stolen. And some of my limps too. But when I take a bite out of a big stack it is going to be a lot larger than 1bb.

Rebuys for huge amounts are generally bad for the long term health of the game. The worst players get burned too often for too much and they just quit playing. Limiting the rebuy amount is good for the weaker players and good for the game.

DrStrange

+100

 

[MatB]

I need to buy in for the max late night so I have a chance to get even.
Limiting me to the original buy in amount would be.... well. Limiting. To say the least.