Cash Game Cash out notice / HnR prevention (1 Viewer)

[upNdown]

Let me try and offer an example that's more concrete.

Say I schedule a game from 3-11 pm. I have 9 players say they are interested. But two will have to leave at 6pm, and another at 6:30, they are courteous enoguh to tell the host and I can figure the game is probably still viable 6 handed for the rest of the night with the other players committing. If the game happens to break at 9:30 or 10 instead of 11, I am not going to cry about it either.

So say then someone that didn't announce suddenly decides to leave at 6:15 (hit and run on a big pot) and another guy busts out at 6:45. (Only brought one buy-in.) Those two players are being rude to the four players that expected a 6 handed game to at least a few more hours, imo.

If all these players made their intentions known to the host, in the first place. If I knew we only had four players after 6:45 I could have checked around to see if everyone was cool breaking at 7 or deciding to call off the game, either way enables the other players to make other plans if the game isn't as viable as one would assume a game with nine players to be.

I get emergencies happen, and I am good with leeway if you played 70-80% of the scheduled time and the game breaks a little early. But I think in the circumstances of the two players above, they owed more courtesy to the host and the other players that committed to being there too.

Everything you say is true. My point is different. Even under the best of circumstances, when those two guys leave at 6:00, it's annoying to the other players, regardless of whether they were scheduled to do so. And even moreso if they're ahead.
And to the folks who respond, "So I shouldn't go to a game if I don't want to stay until the end?" My response is, why not stay until the end? That's what the majority of people going to a home game do. Commit to the game! Have an extra coffee tomorrow.

 

[JustinInMN]

Even under the best of circumstances, when those two guys leave at 6:00, it's annoying to the other players, regardless of whether they were scheduled to do so.

I think as long as everyone knows ahead of time (meaning before the game begins), it's fine. I'd rather have 3 hours of 9-handed play than none at all. If I had only 7 players interested and counting the 3 that had to leave early, I could cancel the game. If I am overloaded with players that want to commit to the full time and I had a capacity limit of 9, then I would probably ask those 3 players to step aside. In any case, the point is not to announce on arrive, but be open with the host from the moment of commitment.

"So I shouldn't go to a game if I don't want to stay until the end?" My response is, why not stay until the end? That's what the majority of people going to a home game do. Commit to the game! Have an extra coffee tomorrow.

A lot of my players have kids with evening activities, family obligation, getting a whole afternoon out of anyone that wants to play is often a challenge. Frankly, if I didn't host, I wouldn't be able to get to other games very often, and it means a lot to these players to be able to accommodate them best I can.

 

[upNdown]

I think as long as everyone knows ahead of time (meaning before the game begins), it's fine. I'd rather have 3 hours of 9-handed play than none at all. If I had only 7 players interested and counting the 3 that had to leave early, I could cancel the game. If I am overloaded with players that want to commit to the full time and I had a capacity limit of 9, then I would probably ask those 3 players to step aside. In any case, the point is not to announce on arrive, but be open with the host from the moment of commitment.



A lot of my players have kids with evening activities, family obligation, getting a whole afternoon out of anyone that wants to play is often a challenge. Frankly, if I didn't host, I wouldn't be able to get to other games very often, and it means a lot to these players to be able to accommodate them best I can.

Which is great! I'm just saying, don't tell me the other players don't get annoyed when 6:00 rolls around and somebody takes a big stack off the table. Again, it's not a mortal sin. But it's annoying.

 

[JustinInMN]

Which is great! I'm just saying, don't tell me the other players don't get annoyed when 6:00 rolls around and somebody takes a big stack off the table. Again, it's not a mortal sin. But it's annoying.

I don't think it's that annoying, someone is going to win and lose every night. It's really only a problem if intentions are withheld to a point that causes the host to grossly underestimate the viability of the game. Which is why I am much harder on the two in my example that opted for a sudden departure than the three that declared their intentions with the host from the invite.

 

[GenghisKhan]

My group's home game rules:

Fixed start and end times.
No cashing out before end time.
Exceptions are:

-player states at start time if they must leave early and states which time they are leaving.
(Got an early flight so have to leave at 10h)

-player gets emergencency call and must leave. (A few of my friends can be called in for service calls at any time)

Hit n run = banned (only 3x in 20+ yrs)

Our view is this: Apparently making $100 is more important to you than getting to know the group, integrating and just having a good time.

 

[LotsOfChips]

My group's home game rules:

Fixed start and end times.
No cashing out before end time.
Exceptions are:

-player states at start time if they must leave early and states which time they are leaving.
(Got an early flight so have to leave at 10h)

-player gets emergency call and must leave. (A few of my friends can be called in for service calls at any time)

Hit n run = banned (only 3x in 20+ yrs)

Our view is this: Apparently making $100 is more important to you than getting to know the group, integrating and just having a good time.

Having well established house rules like this are definitely a worthwhile option, and provide clarity of expectations for everybody (assuming everyone including newcomers are aware of them). Most games I play in have a fairly fixed start time, although sometimes players straggle in a bit later. End times seem to be much less well defined, and seem to depend on how many players have been felted, how drunk or high the remaining players are, whether anyone has anything they need to do the next day, or whether their spouses will get pissed if they stay out much longer.

If there is a fixed end time, then the two exceptions you state are great, and the expectation is clear. If the end is undefined and subject to a vague determination of everybody leaving when they feel they've had enough, then sticking around for 4+ hours in a game that might last 4-1/2 hours or might last 6 hours, and giving some notice isn't such a big deal, IMO, especially if yours is the spouse that will be pissed off.

 

[davethesave]

This is a good discussion everyone.

As is with most home games, etiquette is important and I can say as host I have seen both my share of HnR as well as guys who HnS (Hit n Sit) for the rest of their time at the table. I am not he type of player who finds himself down regularly so I am not desperate for the game to go on a 12 hour sesh. The problem is I dislike very short handed tables. It makes for sloppy random and sometime very unstrategic poker.

Here is the situation that has happened in the past .. Playing a cash game at table with 8 players the game slows down and eventually 2 guys leave... we are down to 6 players, 2 other players are chasing their rebuys and want to keep playing. Bigstack has slowed down his aggression, the game is tapering off as it would after a few hours... If big stack leaves - I absolutely despise playing in 5... one or more of us is bound to be hurt in silly random Q3 vs 96 pots. Even if I am not involved, seeing someone push with that garbage is like nails on a chalkboard. The point is, when I host, I make it clear that if the numbers dwindle, with no sight of new players joining, I will break the game.

Before the quarantine, one of the cash games I hosted I invited a new guy who is a great guy and total class act. Friendly, knew the others and just overall I approve. I did notice his rock status after he hit a couple of early big pots. He really kicked his game down and protected himself (kind of like a big big stack coasting in a tourney that he was bound to make it ot the end if he just sat tight- this player is used to tournaments). Anyways, I will invite him back as I don't think he did it on purpose, but his lesser activity was a bit of an action killer at a table with 8 players for the duration.

I think if the game is good and the guys around are willing, it will be obvious to not HnR and hopefully a bit of table talk can get players to not HnS (did I just invent that saying????).

 

[upNdown]

This is a good discussion everyone.

As is with most home games, etiquette is important and I can say as host I have seen both my share of HnR as well as guys who HnS (Hit n Sit) for the rest of their time at the table. I am not he type of player who finds himself down regularly so I am not desperate for the game to go on a 12 hour sesh. The problem is I dislike very short handed tables. It makes for sloppy random and sometime very unstrategic poker.

Here is the situation that has happened in the past .. Playing a cash game at table with 8 players the game slows down and eventually 2 guys leave... we are down to 6 players, 2 other players are chasing their rebuys and want to keep playing. Bigstack has slowed down his aggression, the game is tapering off as it would after a few hours... If big stack leaves - I absolutely despise playing in 5... one or more of us is bound to be hurt in silly random Q3 vs 96 pots. Even if I am not involved, seeing someone push with that garbage is like nails on a chalkboard. The point is, when I host, I make it clear that if the numbers dwindle, with no sight of new players joining, I will break the game.

Before the quarantine, one of the cash games I hosted I invited a new guy who is a great guy and total class act. Friendly, knew the others and just overall I approve. I did notice his rock status after he hit a couple of early big pots. He really kicked his game down and protected himself (kind of like a big big stack coasting in a tourney that he was bound to make it ot the end if he just sat tight- this player is used to tournaments). Anyways, I will invite him back as I don't think he did it on purpose, but his lesser activity was a bit of an action killer at a table with 8 players for the duration.

I think if the game is good and the guys around are willing, it will be obvious to not HnR and hopefully a bit of table talk can get players to not HnS (did I just invent that saying????).

Hit n Sit! We had one of these. At a $20 buy-in game. (And most of us were always planning to buy in 3 or 4 times - that was just the nature of this game.) But this one guy, if he ever got his stack up to around $40, he was done. He'd fold and fold and fold and occaisionally limp-fold, until he could leave.
Oh and for what it's worth, this guy easily had a lot more money than anybody else at the table.

 

[legonick]

How did the HnS guys build their stack? If it was playing nitty before, I wouldn't expect them to start raising with rags just because they have money.

 

[Mr Winberg]

How did the HnS guys build their stack? If it was playing nitty before, I wouldn't expect them to start raising with rags just because they have money.

An example: A bunch of years ago I was very nitty. I played a home cash game with 2 ultra maniacs, 3 super-sticky calling stations, 1 pro, 2 average ABC players and I. It was so wild each hand felt like a commitment for the whole stack. I've never played as tight as I did, my money was quite scared. I kid you not: I won a total of 3 hands the whole night, and cashed out with a profit of ~70 BBs. Had I won a lot I would probably had been considered a HnS, which would have been wrong. I was simply chicken.

 

[Frogzilla]

There is nothing wrong with not betting if you don’t want to. Someone who wins a pot fair and square doesn’t owe the table anything. They don’t have to make poor plays to give some of it back.

Also, I’m a proponent of allowing people to go south between hands down to 100bb (not in their pocket, that’s problematic, but in between hands). People have amounts they are willing to gamble for. If they win some money and the stack exceeds that amount then they are forced to choose between either A) leaving the table or B) playing for an amount they are just not comfortable or prepared for. Food for thought

 

[GenghisKhan]

We don't mind hit n sit though.
We have 2 regulars, great guys and friends with everyone, who are nits.

When they hit good early on, we joke that the money is gone for the night.
Mostly because they're nits who don't see a lot of hands anyway.

We also have the crazy gamblers who see 90% of the flops.

You need all kinds to have a poker gang.
And we decided we wouldn't hold style of play against people.

Don't get me wrong, you're going to get an earful for calling with 83o OR for sitting on your stack.
But it's 100% joking either way.

And I also realise all of our poker groups are very different. So we can't all have the same views or rules.
If instead of close friends who wanted a dedicated end time, I played with strangers or acqaintances who wanted to play til 2am, probably most of my rules would be different.

 

[LotsOfChips]

There is nothing wrong with not betting if you don’t want to. Someone who wins a pot fair and square doesn’t owe the table anything. They don’t have to make poor plays to give some of it back.

I personally agree with this.

Also, I’m a proponent of allowing people to go south between hands down to 100bb (not in their pocket, that’s problematic, but in between hands). People have amounts they are willing to gamble for. If they win some money and the stack exceeds that amount then they are forced to choose between either A) leaving the table or B) playing for an amount they are just not comfortable or prepared for.

I'm not sure what you are advocating here, or what you mean by "going south between hands", or what you mean by "not in their pocket, that’s problematic, but in between hands". Perhaps you could explain.

It sounds like rat-holing (taking money off the table while continuing to play). I'm not in favor of that at all, and I wouldn't play in a game that allowed that, no more than I would play in a game that allowed you to pull money out of your pocket in the middle of a hand.

 

[Frogzilla]

I

I personally agree with this.


I'm not sure what you are advocating here, or what you mean by "going south between hands", or what you mean by "not in their pocket, that’s problematic, but in between hands". Perhaps you could explain.

It sounds like rat-holing (taking money off the table while continuing to play). I'm not in favor of that at all, and I wouldn't play in a game that allowed that, no more than I would play in a game that allowed you to pull money out of your pocket in the middle of a hand.

i meant to write going south as an official cash out with the host/bank. Not just taking chips off the table

it’s incredibly uncommon but I wrote one big benefit above...you don’t force folks to play with an amount over their comfort level.

 

[upNdown]

There is nothing wrong with not betting if you don’t want to. Someone who wins a pot fair and square doesn’t owe the table anything. They don’t have to make poor plays to give some of it back.

Also, I’m a proponent of allowing people to go south between hands down to 100bb (not in their pocket, that’s problematic, but in between hands). People have amounts they are willing to gamble for. If they win some money and the stack exceeds that amount then they are forced to choose between either A) leaving the table or B) playing for an amount they are just not comfortable or prepared for. Food for thought

That's an interesting idea and I totally understand the sense behind it. But doesn't that open it up to abuse? If that were the normal thing to do, I'd rake 25% of every pot I won, right into my pocket.

 

[LotsOfChips]

it’s incredibly uncommon but I wrote one big benefit above...you don’t force folks to play with an amount over their comfort level.

But they're not at risk of losing any more than they bought in for, no matter how much they won. All you are really doing is guaranteeing their early winnings, and preventing other players from possibly recouping some of their early losses.

Just because they now have a big(ger) stack, I don't see how you should worry about whether they are comfortable playing with more than they bought in for. If they want to play tight and not lose it all back, fine. But this is just a sanctioned form of Hit & Run IMO. This is so much like rat-holing that I can't see the difference. Sorry, I'm not a fan.

... If that were the normal thing to do, I'd rake 25% of every pot I won, right into my pocket.

Screw the 25%, I would pocket the entire excess every time I was up. If the whole table did this, nobody would ever have more than their initial buy in on the table, and the players would constantly be cashing out whenever they were up and having to top up every time they were down enough. Is this really poker?

 

[upNdown]

Screw the 25%, I would pocket the entire excess every time I was up. If the whole table did this, nobody would ever have more than their initial buy in on the table, and the players would constantly be cashing out whenever they were up and having to top up every time they were down enough. Is this really poker?

No, not really. But to be fair to @Frogzilla , lots of people do lots of things for the benefit of their home game that isn't what a lot of us would call real poker.
But to this point. I recently watched a high roller cash game. Helmuth was in it and he got lucky early and tripled up. Rob Yong, at the end of the table, was laughing at him, saying "Now you have to play 500 big blinds deep, and you have no idea how to do that." And I like Helmuth, but I'm sure there was a lot of truth to that.
That's real poker.

 

[Coyote]

Simplest and most efficient rule is "nobody leaves, if winning, before 11:00pm (e.g.) or before having played for three hours, if he arrived later than the start time".
Emergencies, of course, are a different issue. You should be able to estimate if they 're real or faked. In the latter case, you don't invite again.

Needless to say the "one stack per night" rule must also be observed. You can't return to the table with less money than what you had upon leaving.

One-orbit warning is also good, but of secondary importance.

 

[Frogzilla]

But they're not at risk of losing any more than they bought in for, no matter how much they won. All you are really doing is guaranteeing their early winnings, and preventing other players from possibly recouping some of their early losses.

Just because they now have a big(ger) stack, I don't see how you should worry about whether they are comfortable playing with more than they bought in for. If they want to play tight and not lose it all back, fine. But this is just a sanctioned form of Hit & Run IMO. This is so much like rat-holing that I can't see the difference. Sorry, I'm not a fan.


Screw the 25%, I would pocket the entire excess every time I was up. If the whole table did this, nobody would ever have more than their initial buy in on the table, and the players would constantly be cashing out whenever they were up and having to top up every time they were down enough. Is this really poker?

The only response I really can say is to give it a go.

I was at a game where going south was a common procedure and it shocked me. I was trying to wonder best way to bring up “hey this normally isn’t cool” and debating whether it was my place to even say anything since it wasn’t my game. And the more I saw how it operated, and what it did for the game, the more I realized it’s a pretty good dynamic. And yes, it’s 100% still poker, just effective stacks are kept in check later in the night.

 

[JustinInMN]

Also, I’m a proponent of allowing people to go south between hands down to 100bb (not in their pocket, that’s problematic, but in between hands).

I have been a proponent of using a "hand cap." (Full Tilt had something like this IIRC.)

Basically it's a max that can be wagered on any hand per player, and you would probably set it at 100x BB.

This alleviates all the issues expressed and makes max buy ins obsolete.

So basically if you have a 0.25-0.50 game and the hand cap of 50, if the preflop wager is 1, the flop wager is 4. The turn wager is 15, that means there is 30 remaining to the cap that can be wagered on the river. (And "all in" would mean "to the cap" if a player has more chip than needed to make the cap.)

It's not even tricky to keep track, just segregate one pile and put one bet from each round there to keep a running count.

Problem is despite all the problems it solves, it's just unpopular.

 

[Frogzilla]

I have been a proponent of using a "hand cap." (Full Tilt had something like this IIRC.)

Basically it's a max that can be wagered on any hand per player, and you would probably set it at 100x BB.

This alleviates all the issues expressed and makes max buy ins obsolete.

So basically if you have a 0.25-0.50 game and the hand cap of 50, if the preflop wager is 1, the flop wager is 4. The turn wager is 15, that means there is 30 remaining to the cap that can be wagered on the river. (And "all in" would mean "to the cap" if a player has more chip than needed to make the cap.)

It's not even tricky to keep track, just segregate one pile and put one bet from each round there to keep a running count.

Problem is despite all the problems it solves, it's just unpopular.

Yes, that’s exactly how this “going south” played out. 100 bb cap poker

 

[Coyote]

Another form of institutional "going South", allowed in a game I 'm aware of, but would never play in, is "keep chips up North".
That is, you buy in for let's say $200, but you only table the $100 and keep the rest in your pocket, for eventual use (supposedly not in the middle of a hand).
IMHO, chips in players' pockets, or anywhere else than the table, is a recipe for pain and disaster.

 

[upNdown]

Yes, that’s exactly how this “going south” played out. 100 bb cap poker

I guess it depends on the game and how deep it usually plays. I'd be great with it in the .25/.50 game where people buy in for $20 initially, and maybe rebuy for $40. But I've played other .25/.50 games where people are initially buying in for $60, $80, $100 - it would be stupid for that game.

 

[LotsOfChips]

Yes, that’s exactly how this “going south” played out. 100 bb cap poker

Not really - it is taking money off the table, which doesn't happen in Cap Limit. If you want to play Cap Limit, great, IMO that solves the (perceived) problem. But rat-holing (and that is really what "going south" is), ... as stated above, I'm not a fan.

 

[JustinInMN]

Yes, that’s exactly how this “going south” played out. 100 bb cap poker

The max "effective stack" is always 100BB for any stack that is at that level or above. The big difference is players don't actually separate or cash out the overage. Which is a heck of a lot easier on the bank.

 

[JustinInMN]

But I've played other .25/.50 games where people are initially buying in for $60, $80, $100 - it would be stupid for that game.

Well there is no reason the hand cap couldn't be 200 or 300 BB if you want a deeper game.

 

[Pitbull888]

We start off our session by everyone stating what time they intend to finish. ($1/$2 nlhe)
Exceptions: Emergencies (family, etc.), and a player reached his/her max buy in for the session (usually 7 buy ins or so) and has to quit.

No silly 30 minute notice to leave. Why? Because everyone knows this is just another form of HnR.
We had players who stated they would leave at a certain time, and they usually do when they're up, but they tend to stick around longer (about an hour or two) when they're down and only leave when they're positive. Needless to say, they weren't invited back.

HnS is totally legal. But the player will have to absorb a lot of needling from others.

 

[Josh Kifer]

House rules is you play until it's late, or you give a vague time (guys, gotta leave around 10...)

Then, when you are good to go, give a rotation at the table minimum. Normally we give a 30 min notice. But if you play with friends and a good group, it's never really an issue.

 

[Jambine]

But if you play with friends and a good group, it's never really an issue.

^that^

 

[Chawks45]

House rules is you play until it's late, or ...

Or until the spousal units start calling. Not one at a time, either, but all at once.