Increasing Stakes (1 Viewer)

[emunster18]

I've been hosting a 0.25/0.50 game with a $50 max buy in every other month this year. We alternate a $50 tournament with these cash games, so we essentially play a $50 game monthly. I have had a couple players interested in a bigger game. So I was thinking about increasing the initial buy in to the next cash game to $100 instead of $50.

My question is: Should I increase the blinds to $1/$1 with the increased money on the table. Or is playing 200bb deep fine with a friendly home game?

 

[HughDrackman]

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with keeping the stakes the same. I usually play .25 / .50 with $100 buy in.

 

[dinosaur]

$100 @ .25/.50 is perfectly fine imo. That’s the game I play too. $50-$100 buy-in would probably solve your problem.

Also, upping it to $1/$1 just for the sake of 2 players could end up making the rest of your players uncomfortable. Potentially hurting your game. Good luck. Let us know how it ends up.

 

[Nickamas]

Both options are completely fine.

The nit players won't like the blind increase the loose players would probably prefer the blind increase but won't be as vocal as the nits. Thats my personal experience anyway.

I suggest keeping the blinds the same and adjust for the next games if you feel the need. Nowadays many cash games run with deep stacks.


Edit: You can also do a max 100 buy in, and a min 50 dollar buy in (for the cash games)

This may be a happy medium.

 

[DrStrange]

Raising the stakes is often damaging to a game.

Sure, the host hears an earful from the best players wanting to up the stakes. Be very cautious if this isn't coming from the weaker players as well. Why change things if the game is going well? You have to know that higher stakes, however it is done, is going to move more money from the donators to the sharks.

I suggest Hero proceed with caution. Shearing the losers faster seems like a dubious strategy for the long-term health of your game

 

[Eriks]

Keeping the stakes the same and making the buy-in $50-100 seems like the best solution.
Tread lightly! In my experience, players that become uncomfortable with changes in the game will stop showing up, rather than speaking up.

 

[Labrat]

Raising the stakes is often damaging to a game.

Sure, the host hears an earful from the best players wanting to up the stakes. Be very cautious if this isn't coming from the weaker players as well. Why change things if the game is going well? You have to know that higher stakes, however it is done, is going to move more money from the donators to the sharks.

I suggest Hero proceed with caution. Shearing the losers faster seems like a dubious strategy for the long-term health of your game

I cannot agree with this enough.

Unless it's essentially a unanimous opinion at the table, I wouldn't budge the stakes at all. If you lose your game (like I once did) you're looking at months, if not years, of rebuilding.

 

[allforcharity]

I'm worried about one of my games. It all started out years ago as a friendly 0.25/0.50 game. Even then we would hit the underside of $1000 or slightly more on the table at the end of the night.

In the last 12 months it's moved from 0.50/1 to 1/1 and now 1/2 in what feels like rapid succession. There is easily now between $5000-10000+ on the table at the end of the night. It's not that I don't make good money, but I only play with what I can afford to lose, and that's not $800-1000 per session (up to weekly). The feeling has gotten downright predatory, though all the players are nice enough themselves.

 

[Machine]

we changed stakes to .5/.5 just so we didn't have to wait through people not paying attention, with no issues

I do a 100 max until someone reaches 400 then its 1/2 match, avg cash outs are 400-600. but we're gamblers, not holdem players

 

[bluffman24]

I started hosting games about 6 months ago and ive found a .25/.50 game with a $100 buy in works well and keeps everyone happy. Obviously its different with every game and every group of people, but maybe try the increase and see if people like it. If anyone gives you a hard time, try convincing them to just give it a shot once and see what happens.

 

[emunster18]

Just played my September game and decided to just do a $50-$100 buy-in range in October, and let the group play as they will.

 

[ontheriver51]

No reason to raise the blinds. Mess with the buy in all you want, it u less you’re going to make the game MUCH bigger there’s no harm in having a few extra BBs

 

[merkong]

I’d say keep the blinds the same. People are always free to leave a game if it’s not big enough but you never want anyone leaving your game because it’s too big. Your game will suffer.

I don’t even know about raising the buy-in. We top off to the big stack at any time and that’s all the latitude a game needs. You could have players uncomfortable with a bigger buy-in.

For context; I spread weekly a .25/.25 game with a $25-40 initial buy-in and top off to the big stack at any time. We bank between $700-1000 each week.

The range allows people to come in for less and again, people can always reload.

The number one game killer in my experience, and I’ve never killed a game because I know better, is raising the stakes and buy-ins. And I’ve spread a few games.

Ken (merkong) 500+ Sessions Spread
Owner/Operator/Founder:
*The Godfather Club MN (The Venue)
*The Executive Game, (The Current Game)
*Frogtown Card Club, St. Paul (Retired Venue)
*The Poker Family (Our Philosophy)

 

[emunster18]

I’d say keep the blinds the same. People are always free to leave a game if it’s not big enough but you never want anyone leaving your game because it’s too big. Your game will suffer.

I don’t even know about raising the buy-in. We top off to the big stack at any time and that’s all the latitude a game needs. You could have players uncomfortable with a bigger buy-in.

For context; I spread weekly a .25/.25 game with a $25-40 initial buy-in and top off to the big stack at any time. We bank between $700-1000 each week.

The range allows people to come in for less and again, people can always reload.

The number one game killer in my experience, and I’ve never killed a game because I know better, is raising the stakes and buy-ins. And I’ve spread a few games.

Ken (merkong) 500+ Sessions Spread
Owner/Operator/Founder:
*The Godfather Club MN (The Venue)
*The Executive Game, (The Current Game)
*Frogtown Card Club, St. Paul (Retired Venue)
*The Poker Family (Our Philosophy)

Thanks for the commentary. What I have communicated to the group is a $50-$100 initial buy-in with rebuys of any amount up to $100 max. Last game was a couple weeks ago, 8 players, $50 initial buy in. Banked $700 or so by the end of the night. This will likely only scale to $900-$1,000 with the change in initial buy-in. I'll report back when I host in October.

Currently have 9 on the list, and no push back on the change. After discussing with the group and on this forum, I think a $1/$1 would be too big for this friendly home game. We're 90 minutes from Nevada and can always find a seat at $1/$2 if we need bigger stakes.

 

[merkong]

I think a $1/$1 would be too big for this friendly home game.

You’d be surprised how a seemingly small or innocuous change like this would change the game.

I talked in a different thread about the intersection of stakes and the casual tone. Two entities moving on separate axis’s. All groups have those axis intersect at different points. The problem is that when we raise stakes it’s hard to go back. The game gets big, you lose some, you bring it back down and while some come back, you lose the others.

Secret sauce.

I think you’re seeing it right.