Match the Stack Debate (7 Viewers)

[Chris Manzoni]

Match the stack is the killer of fish. The deeper the stacks, the more skilled player has an advantage and the faster the fish will lose its bankroll. There's a reason why online casinos cap at 100bb, it's to not allow the grinders to kill off fish faster than they're coming in.

A MILLION times this. Match the stack or even match half the stack is the fastest way to kill a friendly home game - meaning an un-raked home game filled with friends who play for fun and each other's company. Rakrul says it PERFECTLY.

Cap the buy-in, players can top off any time. If they are felted, allow a double buy-in, but that's the MAX at any time to top off to or reload going forward. Yeah it sucks to be in the hole and unable to get it all back in one hand, but I've seen "small stakes" games get too big too fast and those games don't exist any more.

 

[Old State]

So I just finished up a session at Borgata. $1/3 cashed in for $300 out for $1055. Some REALLY bad real life degenerate gamblers. One guy said he was down 5K for the day playing $1/3!!. He and another guy cashed in and lost their stack $300 a pop for the 5 hours I played. They were playing calling and raising anything to win their money back.

If they had a match the half stack even I think they would have been tempted and out of cash within in two hours. Instead they are still playing there as I write this helping keep the table full and generating action.

 

[grandmeme]

I have played in many different games. Without a doubt, match the stack leads to players going broke fast.

If you are hosting a friendly NLHE game, cap it at 300BB max. Mixed games, I would say 200BB. Match 50% of the big stack? I think that is reasonable too. But just never match the stack, unless you are hosting a game for profit and for sharks. YMMV depending on player base.

It's just a poker fact that match the stack kills recreational players very quickly. A high SPR on every street always favours the professional, and never the fish.

 

[krafticus]

In theory, pending your player pool and bankrolls, it essentially becomes an uncapped game.

Lets say you set the initial buy-in for $300 in a $1/$2 game, and within the 1st orbit a player doubles up, now sitting with $600. Now, the rest of the table can now top off to $600 if they wanted to. a few hands later, another big hand plays out, and the big stack is now sitting at $1100. Now, the entire table can top off to $1100.. and so on and so fourth. Before you know it, you've got 3-4 players that just top off to match the big stack knowing any big hand is possible to make that big score.

Honestly, we do 1/2 the big stack, but I'm not a fan of that either. We once had a game go off the rails and in a $.25/$.50 game, the big stack was $1600, and 2 people added-on or rebought for $800 each. That just seems nuts, especially since the 2nd biggest stack at the time was around $500.

I'd rather keep a capped buy-in of 200-400BB and just let the game play out that way.

 

[drgg]

Match the stack lets the game grow as time goes on without increasing the max buy in. But more importantly its lets someone who gets stacked a chance at redemption and to get all his chips back which poker should be about. I like it

 

[Old State]

In theory, pending your player pool and bankrolls, it essentially becomes an uncapped game.

Lets say you set the initial buy-in for $300 in a $1/$2 game, and within the 1st orbit a player doubles up, now sitting with $600. Now, the rest of the table can now top off to $600 if they wanted to. a few hands later, another big hand plays out, and the big stack is now sitting at $1100. Now, the entire table can top off to $1100.. and so on and so fourth. Before you know it, you've got 3-4 players that just top off to match the big stack knowing any big hand is possible to make that big score.

Honestly, we do 1/2 the big stack, but I'm not a fan of that either. We once had a game go off the rails and in a $.25/$.50 game, the big stack was $1600, and 2 people added-on or rebought for $800 each. That just seems nuts, especially since the 2nd biggest stack at the time was around $500.

I'd rather keep a capped buy-in of 200-400BB and just let the game play out that way.

This is the reality. What I’m seeing is there isn’t a logical defense of the practice other than it gives someone a chance….or they just like it. Blinds and buyin max is set for a purpose. This just blows that up and allows a $1/1 game to end up playing like a $2/5 in a matter of a few hours.

But more importantly its lets someone who gets stacked a chance at redemption and to get all his chips back which poker should be about. I like it

Makes it easier for a stacked played to get stacked again for even more ….which is very likely. These players may not come back for a while in my experience

 

[TheYeti]

When we were playing match the stack, I lost $835 in one night at a .25/.50 game. I don't recommend it.

 

[Taghkanic]

Raising the stakes is one way to kill a game….and allowing match the stakes effectively does that. So far I’m not convinced

My game began 15+ years ago as a $35 two-table one-rebuy tournament. There was maybe $900 total in the prize pool on most nights.

Today it is a one-table 2/5 cash game and there is typically $12-$15K in the kitty.

Stakes can be raised as long as they’re in keeping with your player pool’s abilities/wants. I think very gradual increases are the way to go, but obviously one should poll your regs before any changes.

And always be recruiting. Of the players who were in my game 15 years ago, there are only three left. The attrition has been due to a combination of deaths, pregnancies, moves, new jobs, etc. One bankruptcy, though not due to poker… Only a few due to the change in stakes. The regs are a pretty stable group now but I am still always on the hunt for new prospects.

 

[Old State]

My game began 15+ years ago as a $35 two-table one-rebuy tournament. There was maybe $900 total in the prize pool on most nights.

Today it is a one-table 2/5 cash game and there is typically $12-$15K in the kitty.

Stakes can be raised as long as they’re in keeping with your player pool’s abilities/wants. I think very gradual increases are the way to go, but obviously one should poll your regs before any changes.

And always be recruiting. Of the players who were in my game 15 years ago, there are only three left. The attrition has been due to a combination of deaths, pregnancies, moves, new jobs, etc. One bankruptcy, though not due to poker… Only a few due to the change in stakes. The regs are a pretty stable group now but I am still always on the hunt for new prospects.

You are lucky you found that many $2/5 players. They are pretty rare.

My game started in 2001 with a .50/1 spradic seven card stud game. When holdem got popular the Borgata opened and we were all playing their $2/4 or $3/6 limit game so I changed my home game to that. We had a full table every week until 2005 when AC first spread $1/2 NL. NL was until that point always considered a tournament game.


Everyone wanted to switch to NL. I predicted it would hurt the regular game. It did. People started coming up with excuses why they couldn’t play. We went from weekly games to a few a year.
Only exception - Four of us ran about 7-8 thirty person tournaments a year. Those were really the only time we would get a good NL cash game (as people got knocked out)

Then many of us got married and had kids. There was poker break of about 7 years.

I started a .25/50 NL game to get some people I knew from other games comfortable with cash poker …which I Heavily prefer. I weened them up to 50/1 then 1/1 $120. It seems to be a good healthy spot. Several of my old poker friends complain they want to raise the stakes but I’ve refused because I know what will happen. Several are still winning $400-600 in this smaller game so they always show up

Right before COVID we did a $2/5 game and had a wait list. However few ever committed to play that again

 

[Taghkanic]

You are lucky you found that many $2/5 players. They are pretty rare.

My area has a low population and only one casino within an hour’s drive (and a very small casino at that). There are a few decent private games, and more bad ones (highly-raked), but mostly drab $50-$100 firehouse tourneys.

So an unraked 2/5 game with good music, decent food, THC chips, nice table, comfy chairs, quality cards, great dealer, big screen projector, etc. has a decent chance of finding enough 2/5 players.

 

[Old State]

My area has a low population and only one casino within an hour’s drive (and a very small casino at that). There are a few decent private games, and more bad ones (highly-raked), but mostly drab $50-$100 firehouse tourneys.

So an unraked 2/5 game with good music, decent food, THC chips, nice table, comfy chairs, quality cards, great dealer, big screen projector, etc. has a decent chance of finding enough 2/5 players.

That makes sense then. I’m an hour and a half…if that… from AC and there are casinos all over the Philadelphia area. Most $2/5 players are at the casinos

 

[allforcharity]

Any observer will notice from my pics in various threads that Hero stacks his chips 12 or 15 high. For whatever reason this irritates the host of Tuesday's game to no end.

Aha! A strategy, then!

 

[Mojo1312]

Aha! A strategy, then!

Unintentional., but sometimes luck finds hero.