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

[Mojo1312]

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.

In the above example, the big stack would have $600. So in that scenario a $100 limit is fine with you? And as the big stack, wouldn't it be better to see players buy back in for more than one-sixth of your stack?

 

[Rhodeman77]

I played in a $1/2 game with a $60 min and $300 max. There was a regular that played in this game that would buy in for $60 over and over again. He would limp in and jam if there was raise or he would jam if someone raise to $10 and there was a caller or 2. So every hand all the bigger stack had to see what had done yet or if he was yet to act. His short stack influenced the game more than any big stack did!!!

The rest of would complain to the host to raise the min buy in to $100 at least, but he never did.

As @DrStrange said it is much easier to play a short stack correctly. But most people that play short stacks in cash games don’t know how to adjust their play when they win a big 5 way pot and have a big stack. At the casino they would probably leave not wanting to risk losing it. In a home game that is often discouraged and will get a player on the banned list quickly. So they have to risk losing that big stack when they over play one pair hands that they are used to shoving on the flop when short stacking.

At my game game this past week on the first hour this was the stack to my immediate left, he is a Hold’em player mostly that fell into some monster pots, when I busted I rebought for $600 so that if I got into a big pot with him I could put a real dent into it.

Unfortunately for me the guy across from got most of it before I ever had a chance.
He didn’t know how to play his big stack and lost with flushes on paired boards, underfulls, and weaker flushed, all RIO already talked about.

 

[BGinGA]

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.

Was super-simple to track -- the tournament software used tracked the number of add-ons and displayed the resulting average stack size after each one.

Initial buy-in was $25 (25c/25c starting blinds) with $10 add-ons. No restriction on add-ons other than you could not create a stack size larger than the average stack size by adding on (hence the no re-buys terminology).

If the average stack size was $32 and a player busted, he could add on 3x $10 and get a $30 stack. Any player with a stack of $22 or less was eligible to add on for $10 ($20 if $12 or less).

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?

No, not at all. Add-ons were available for the first two hours. Players generally only topped off if suddenly finding themselves short-stacked or felted after a big loss.

We started with six players ($150 initially in play), and there were a total of 23 x $10 add-ons purchased (six for just $10, three for $20, and one $30 and two for $40 after players were felted). $380 total in play ($63 avg stack), and two of the six players did not add on at all.

Sample of one, but I was pleased with how it turned out.

 

[Jimulacrum]

Was super-simple to track -- the tournament software used tracked the number of add-ons and displayed the resulting average stack size after each one.

Initial buy-in was $25 (25c/25c starting blinds) with $10 add-ons. No restriction on add-ons other than you could not create a stack size larger than the average stack size by adding on (hence the no re-buys terminology).

If the average stack size was $32 and a player busted, he could add on 3x $10 and get a $30 stack. Any player with a stack of $22 or less was eligible to add on for $10 ($20 if $12 or less).

No, not at all. Add-ons were available for the first two hours. Players generally only topped off if suddenly finding themselves short-stacked or felted after a big loss.

We started with six players ($150 initially in play), and there were a total of 23 x $10 add-ons purchased (six for just $10, three for $20, and one $30 and two for $40 after players were felted). $380 total in play ($63 avg stack), and two of the six players did not add on at all.

Sample of one, but I was pleased with how it turned out.

So was this a cash game or a tourney? I'm seeing elements of both.

 

[BGinGA]

Exactly correct. It was a hybrid cash/tourney event.

Part of the $40 entry fee went towards the prize pool. Cash payouts occurred when the field size was (S/2 - 1), essentially turning the cash checks into ncv tournament chips which were then used to compete for the winner-take-all prize pool.