Match the Stack Debate (28 Viewers)

[Old State]

I host a semi regular cash game…usually $1/1 $120 max buying. In 20+ years of running cash games matching the stack never came up until recently.

A little context around my home game - the core nucleus of players it started with are seasoned casino players and we are about an hour and a half outside AC. The reason I bought my first set of ASMs and Kems …and built a table …years ago was to run a casino style game without the rake. The Borgata game we all played in…but in my basement. There is no match the stack in AC and I’ve never seen it in any casino. Yet I see it talked about here as if it pretty common in home games

Last night the topic came up and was debated. The majorly of the table felt it had more cons than pros…but didn’t have a super strong stance

I’ve never liked the concept because I’ve always felt it could allow the game to play WAY above the initial stakes and that in the end hurt the game as it could facilitate average to below average players losing more faster. And then not coming back

The fact casinos don’t allow it makes me feel they also think it is bad for the game. It only benefits better players or those with higher risk tolerance (the minority of players) and would serves as a deterrent to keep the weaker players we all need in the game. This is why I moved my game down from $1/2 $300 buying to what it is now about 8 years ago. The game is much healhtehr at the slightly lower stakes.

But I’d love to hear a logic and reason based debate of the pros and cons…

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

I think you've hit the nail on the head, it hurts fish and helps pros. Pros know to be comfortable bringing 10 buyins just in case, while fish are there to gamble. If fish doubles up, instead of winning that night or breaking even. someone tops up to attack his whole stack. The pros of matching the stack means you can get more action on the table and attract big players, but its not sustainable for many games.

 

[chippitydoodah]

Match half the big stack at least. Why make a player go broke before they can reload?

 

[Chips523]

They have match the stack at the casino in Reno. I think it's Atlantis or peppermill. Buy in for $1/$2 was minimum $20-up to highest stack.

 

[Taghkanic]

Half the biggest stack is better, imho, and a solid compromise.

So if your max is $120, but someone runs it up to $400, the effective max becomes $200.

This gets more money onto the table without completely letting the better-rolled players just keep rebuying huge to play bingo (while the lesser-rolled/money-scared get run over).

 

[SixSeven]

I'd say match half the largest stack makes sense if you want to try it. I did that at first, but now I do (after the initial max buy in) 2x that for the rest of the night. Let's the players try to catch up with bigger stacks but doesn't make the game too big. So if the Initial buy in is $50, I'll make it later Max up to $100.

 

[allforcharity]

We've never allowed match-the-stack, but allow unlimited topups to max $500 at a time, which is functionally almost the same (rarely does the big stack have more than $1500 at once). Don't have to go broke to reload, but that's often how it happens.

 

[sonic242]

We have local home games that range from 1/2, 1/3 and 2/5 and all of them start with a 100 BB buyin max. However, all of them loosen up through the night as you have a handful of deep stacks that one cannot effectively compete against rebuying so low. As has been mentioned above, allowing this does help certain caliber and deeper pocketed individuals more than others...

 

[DrStrange]

I hosted two sorts of games - a $1/$2 game with 'match the big stack' and a $1/$1 game with a $100 max rebuy.

The $1/$2 game played big. So much so that my sets with a $13,000 bank sometimes ran out of chips late in the night - I have hosted games with 1,000bb average stacks. Over the years we had about 50 players who were at least semi regular. Now days, the rare times the game runs we never have more than six players and often are forced to play four handed. Put bluntly, "we slaughtered the hog"

The $1/$1 game couldn't play big. Most nights we didn't average 200bb stack depth. My invite list for this game was about as long as the big game - but mostly different players. This game still runs weekly, though it has evolved into a three-ring spread limit circus game. The player losses here are mostly due to death, disability or life changes.

The size of the buy in is one of the key elements that defines how big the game plays. Weak players rarely win in match the stack games unless they "hit and run, (which I STRONGLY encourage every weak player to do should they get lucky. Leave with your winnings.) It is bad for the game both in the short run and long run, but match the stack is very favorable for the best players at the table - assuming there are other games to join when the current one breaks.

Note that topping off is an option no matter what cash game rebuy format is chosen. Any player may add-on up to the max whenever they aren't in a hand.

This sort of decision matters a lot if the host cares about the longevity of his/her game. The bigger the size of rebuys, the bigger the game plays no matter what the blind structure is. If the host wants a very deep game that gets deeper, faster as the night progresses - set the rebuy limits to escalate ever bigger. If the host wants a donkey/fish friendly game, set the rebuys to a fixed amount.

Or the host could just cut the chase and start out with unlimited buy-ins /rebuys anytime. Perhaps mandating a minimum buy-in for 500bb or something similar.

What is best for the game is almost certainly not what maximizes the win rates of the sharks. No matter how loudly they plead their case -=- DrStrange

PS Let's be clear, in a cash game, the short stack has the advantage over multiple deep stacks. People's thinking gets distorted by what the learn about tournament play. But this is a cash game discussion. Being able to rebuy short is a fine defense for weaker players or people with shallow bankrolls or in games with fairly comparable skill levels. Being deep is beneficial mainly to hunt the lucky sucker fish who somehow also has a deep stack.

 

[Tonystark137]

I typically like half of biggest stack. Not as bloody and gives you a chance to make some money back.

We typically guestimate the biggest stack +/- rounding for rebuy amount.

 

[Mojo1312]

There is a poker player who is trying to get a semi regular $1/$2 NLHE, $500 max buy-in, match the big stack game off the ground.

Thus far, he has hosted four games. I have played in two of them. I cashed out for $1200 off of my $350 buy-in when the first game came to an end.

Two of the other players had close to $1500 and the other two players cashed out with around two grand apiece. We were playing five handed the last bit of the game 5 handed 600 to 1000 BB'S deep.

Every game plays different. Player mix matters. Half the players in the above game would top off as necessary to match the big stack. As cool as it is to have a big stack or to play really deep, I can't say that I am a fan of the system.

The match a big stack rule disfavors poorer players, especially as the chipstacks grow in size from players adding on as the game progresses. Calculations change.

The half a big stack rule gives players the opportunity, should it arise, to double up through the big stack.

I am a fan of setting not only a max re-buy amount up to 1.5x the original max buy-in, but a minimum buy-in as well. (Half of the max for example.)

Players in the weekly $1/$2 NLHE game I attend can buy-in for $200 to $400 and ate able to re-buy for $500.

 

[Kam]

Question that I’ve never been 100% on:

Max buy in amount is $200 in a $0.5/$1 game and it’s up to match half the big stack. Big stack is $600 for example and I’m sitting with $100. Can I add on $200 to match $300 half big, or can I only only add on $100 up to original buy in amount of $200?

I think I’ve done add ons up to max original buy in, if you busto you can rebuy up to half big stack.

 

[Tonystark137]

Question that I’ve never been 100% on:

Max buy in amount is $200 in a $0.5/$1 game and it’s up to match half the big stack. Big stack is $600 for example and I’m sitting with $100. Can I add on $200 to match $300 half big, or can I only only add on $100 up to original buy in amount of $200?

I think I’ve done add ons up to max original buy in, if you busto you can rebuy up to half big stack.

We do the re up/rebuy to $200 to a total of $300.

 

[joeyshin]

I don’t mind match the stack but I always show up late since I put my kids to bed. And I always wanna play deeper anyways. I like arriving late and buying in deeper. So, I’m part of the problem. Lol.

 

[chippitydoodah]

Thus far, he has hosted four games. I have played in two of them. I cashed out for $1200 off of my $350 buy-in when the first game came to an end.

Two of the other players had close to $1500 and the other two players cashed out with around two grand apiece. We were playing five handed the last bit of the game 5 handed 600 to 1000 BB'S dedeep.

Yo! The math ain't mathin' for me
Either I'm missing something or 5 guys won a shit ton of money and there wasn't a loser.

 

[upNdown]

I’ve been lucky with my players in that no matter how much they top up to, it never really makes the game play larger. I’ve officially had a match 75% for my .25/.50, $50-100 buyin, but nobody’s ever done the math. Some guys will want to add another hundred or even two hundred later in the night, and some guys are content to let their stack hover around $50 all night. I’ve had nights with over two grand on the table, but the first preflop raises will still be in the $1.75 to $3 range. So like I said, I’ve been lucky with my players.

I do remember one night, years back, I had two guys topping off, going to war with each other on every hand, and essentially doubling the stakes. That was no fun for the rest of us. So if I see the game go in that direction in the future, I suppose I’d go to a hard cap of match up to 50%, or even less if necessary.

 

[quintooo]

@bay area 0.25/0.50 uncapped buyin

 

[Mojo1312]

Yo! The math ain't mathin' for me
Either I'm missing something or 5 guys won a shit ton of money and there wasn't a loser.

One player lost over two grand. With match the big stack, players don't have to win when they can add-on.

 

[TheWhat]

Match half the big stack at least. Why make a player go broke before they can reload?

Agree, we top off to initial Buy-In or up to half the big stack. No one really takes advantage of it though, as it's a friendly game.

 

[Mojo1312]

Yo! The math ain't mathin' for me
Either I'm missing something or 5 guys won a shit ton of money and there wasn't a loser.

I don't post here as often as I use to, but I still take pictures of my sessions. Pics from my second session at the $1/$2 match the big stack game where I won $1050.

If you are reading some of these posts with a measure of incredulity, then you need to broaden your horizons. There are a number of members here who play for stakes that dwarf your typical $1/$2 game.

 

[chippitydoodah]

I don't post here as often as I use to, but I still take pictures of my sessions. Pics from my second session at the $1/$2 match the big stack game where I won $1050.

View attachment 1500409

View attachment 1500410

If you are reading some of these posts with a measure of incredulity, then you need to broaden your horizons. There are a number of members here who play for stakes that dwarf your typical $1/$2 game.

Are you referring to me? I'm completely aware of higher stakes games. All I said was in your story you got 5 guys cashing out for $1500 and up in a 5 person $500 buy in game. It didnt make sense. I like your pictures.

 

[Mojo1312]

The reason behind posting the stack sizes was to illustrate how different a match the big stack game can play from a regular $1/$2 game where rebuys are capped.

As you noted, it is unusual for four players in a $1/$2 game to have those kind of stacks at the end of the evening.

I would caution the O.P. against the players who are advocating for the rule change. The harder the push, the stronger their intentions are of taking advantage of such a change in the house rules.

 

[Old State]

To be clear, I’m not talking about topping off. People at my games always top off through the night.

But my question is this - if it’s better for the game why do casinos not allow it? (the major ones in Vegas and AC…not small ones trying to stuff to attract players). I think casinos feel it’s bad for the game…not good.

 

[Taghkanic]

I can’t think of any reason let players re-buy for the match but not let them top off to the same amount.

 

[Old State]

I can’t think of any reason let players re-buy for the match but not let them top off to the same amount.

They are separate things. Traditional casino rules have a table max and always let players top off when ever ever they are under that. In AC it was always common for someone to put actual cash behind their chips while not in a hand. Dealer will usually take the cash and give chips …but not over the table max.

I noticed in Vegas and when I played in Boston dealers doesn’t take cash for chips so players often have them in their pocket.

 

[BarrieJ3]

Whatever you do, just do it consistently.

If a fish stacks a player twice in an orbit, cracking their aces the second time, don’t then change from a max $ buy in to match the stack just because your better player is tilted beyond belief.

Then again, maybe the fish shouldn’t have called the card/cracking aces, then yelled “I am a God” standing on top of chairs.

 

[NotRealNameNoSir]

But my question is this - if it’s better for the game why do casinos not allow it? (the major ones in Vegas and AC…not small ones trying to stuff to attract players). I think casinos feel it’s bad for the game…not good.

Casinos don't need to cater to pros. Most casinos won't allow it because it helps them to instead have butts in seats slowly moving to the rake.

 

[Old State]

Casinos don't need to cater to pros. Most casinos won't allow it because it helps them to instead have butts in seats slowly moving to the rake.

I agree…and keeping butts in the seats is also the goal of a healthy home game. Hence why I’ve been against it. I haven’t so far seen a compelling argument to do but rather how people are doing it now. I’ve learned from experience that when games get too big with $ you lose players

 

[Old State]

The reason behind posting the stack sizes was to illustrate how different a match the big stack game can play from a regular $1/$2 game where rebuys are capped.

As you noted, it is unusual for four players in a $1/$2 game to have those kind of stacks at the end of the evening.

I would caution the O.P. against the players who are advocating for the rule change. The harder the push, the stronger their intention is of taking advantage of such a change in the house rules.

Over the years it’s almost always aggressive players advocating for it. About 1/3 of my crew are very solid players with high risk tolerance and/or disposable income. One of my goals to keeping the game healthy and regular is always considering the other 2/3rds. For years I resisted moving the stakes up which that 1/3 often asks to do. I know that will be the end of the game

 

[Mojo1312]

Every game plays different. Player mix matters.

Over the years it’s almost always aggressive players advocating for it. About 1/3 of my crew are very solid players with high risk tolerance and/or disposable income. One of my goal to keeping the game healthy and regular is always considering the other 2/3rds. For years I resisted moving the stakes up which that 1/3 often asks to do. I know that will be the end of the game

Match the big stack is an accelerant. IMO, choosing not to add gas to a healthy flame is a wise decision.