Need help with top-up/rebuy rules for no-limit cash "friendly" game (2 Viewers)

[BGinGA]

Also, to be clear, if there are not a lot of rebuys, then my $80 cap could very possibly be more than half the big stack most of the time.

And for that exact reason, I'd modify your rule to "...up to a maximum stack of $80 or the largest stack in play, whichever is smaller".

Don't want to allow re-buys to create a new 'biggest stack', imo.

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

And for that exact reason, I'd modify your rule to "...up to a maximum stack of $80 or the largest stack in play, whichever is smaller".

Don't want to allow re-buys to create a new 'biggest stack', imo.

I hear you, but that seems like adding complexity for something that is very unlikely to be an issue for two reasons. If most of the table buys in for $60 and somebody goes bust, or even just loses half their stack, then it's pretty likely that someone is going to have close to $80, if not more. And with the stipulation that buy-ins must be in $10 increments, and can be no more than $80, if someone wants to top off and say they have $22, then they can only go up to $72 anyway, not all the way to $80.

What I may do is limit the max stack for addons to $60 (roughly) for the first hour, then raise it to max $80. What I'm trying to avoid is any reference to the big stack so we don't get someone who says "Why do you only let me add on up to $65 when Joe in the big stack has $74? It's only a dollar more to let me have $75." If the big stack is $74, I don't really see any great hardship in allowing someone to add on to a slightly larger amount that is still under $80. Also I don't want to waste a bunch of time counting chips and determining who and exactly how much the big stack actually is. That's why I picked $80 as the max rebuy amount. It's most likely going to be less that the biggest stack, but still a little more the the initial max buy-in.

 

[ngmcs8203]

I hear you, but that seems like adding complexity for something that is very unlikely to be an issue for two reasons. If most of the table buys in for $60 and somebody goes bust, or even just loses half their stack, then it's pretty likely that someone is going to have close to $80, if not more. And with the stipulation that buy-ins must be in $10 increments, and can be no more than $80, if someone wants to top off and say they have $22, then they can only go up to $72 anyway, not all the way to $80.

What I may do is limit the max stack for addons to $60 (roughly) for the first hour, then raise it to max $80. What I'm trying to avoid is any reference to the big stack so we don't get someone who says "Why do you only let me add on up to $65 when Joe in the big stack has $74? It's only a dollar more to let me have $75." If the big stack is $74, I don't really see any great hardship in allowing someone to add on to a slightly larger amount that is still under $80. Also I don't want to waste a bunch of time counting chips and determining who and exactly how much the big stack actually is. That's why I picked $80 as the max rebuy amount. It's most likely going to be less that the biggest stack, but still a little more the the initial max buy-in.

Are players buying in for increments of $1 so often that you really need the $10 increment rule?

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

Are players buying in for increments of $1 so often that you really need the $10 increment rule?

I prefer to limit the amount of smaller chips on the table to the initial buy-ins. Rebuys are in $5 and above chips only. Also see the logic in second paragraph for not having to count exact stack amounts. Not interested in getting a precedent started for the guy who wants to add on with $17.25. Trying to keep it simple.

 

[ngmcs8203]

I prefer to limit the amount of smaller chips on the table to the initial buy-ins. Rebuys are in $5 and above chips only. Also see the logic in second paragraph for not having to count exact stack amounts. Not interested in getting a precedent started for the guy who wants to add on with $17.25. Trying to keep it simple.

Oh I gotcha. Yea if there was a guy just topping off every round like it was an online game, I’d kindly ask him to stop before not inviting him again. That’s be annoying af.

 

[Natskule]

Personally I don't like friendly no-limit cash games. They become unfriendly very easy. Different objectives, at least in my opinion.

Friendly no-limit cash games can get unfriendly quickly after a couple of hours and some drinking. No-limit by it's nature is boom or bust hence it being prevalent in tournaments. I love the game, but not for playing a cash game with friends.

We play a 3 raise $5 spread limit dealer's choice as a cash game. That way there is some limit to what can be lost, $20 a betting round is plenty big for this group. Including a lot of different games at a low level keeps a lot of action while limiting overall losses. We want the players to come back next week, which is way more important than winning money on any given night. Most folks are +/- $50 a night, which for this group is reasonable and keeps them coming back.

It all depends on your players. If some aren't coming back because of losses then that needs to be addressed, if some aren't coming because of a lack of action, or because it's too small then address that. Home cash games have to be tailored a bit with rules, limits, buyins etc to retain the player base or the game will fade away. Many good home games disappear because the stakes get to high, most folks just want to have a good time with friends, if they are serious about winning money in poker they will go to a card room or casino.

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

Also, I should add that this is one reason why I prefer $20 chips over $25 chips in lower stakes cash games.

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

Personally I don't like friendly no-limit cash games. They become unfriendly very easy. Different objectives, at least in my opinion.

Friendly no-limit cash games can get unfriendly quickly after a couple of hours and some drinking. No-limit by it's nature is boom or bust hence it being prevalent in tournaments. I love the game, but not for playing a cash game with friends.

We play a 3 raise $5 spread limit dealer's choice as a cash game. That way there is some limit to what can be lost, $20 a betting round is plenty big for this group. Including a lot of different games at a low level keeps a lot of action while limiting overall losses. We want the players to come back next week, which is way more important than winning money on any given night. Most folks are +/- $50 a night, which for this group is reasonable and keeps them coming back.

It all depends on your players. If some aren't coming back because of losses then that needs to be addressed, if some aren't coming because of a lack of action, or because it's too small then address that. Home cash games have to be tailored a bit with rules, limits, buyins etc to retain the player base or the game will fade away. Many good home games disappear because the stakes get to high, most folks just want to have a good time with friends, if they are serious about winning money in poker they will go to a card room or casino.

I don't disagree with any of this. And you have a lot of good advice in the last paragraph. Especially "It all depends on your players." But I've been playing small stakes, no limit hold'em with friends and family for more than 10 years. Haven't had one get unfriendly yet, so I don't plan on moving away from NLHE or pot limit Omaha for now. I've never played "spread limit" so have no opinion on that. I have played limit hold'em, and I hate that game.

I have big plans for regular hosting within the next year. Possibly even as much as 2-3 nights a week eventually. (don't tell my wife that you saw this ) I envision hosting different games for different groups. Low stakes and low cost tournaments for the most friendly experience. Higher stakes cash games for the more action oriented players. Only time will tell tell if my vision matches up with reality.

 

[BigJackJones]

Also, I should add that this is one reason why I prefer $20 chips over $25 chips in lower stakes cash games.

Whoa! Don't go gettin' all mathmalogical and stuff.

 

[BGinGA]

I have played limit hold'em, and I hate that game.

You might try some of the other more action-oriented fixed-limit games: Omaha-8, SOHE, Double-board Omaha, etc. Nice break from NLHE/PLO while not capable of breaking the bankroll, and keeping your current game stakes in relative check.

 

[Nine_high]

Good thread here with lots of info and insight. I'm hosting more often and starting to feel the need to write up some house rules. Another game I play in has the "up to half the big stack" rule, but that probably isn't needed with my crowd as most of them play tighter and smaller than this other group. Last time I hosted there were no rebuys the entire night, so I may be wasting my time, but I think as this group starts playing more regular, that we might see things loosen up a bit. Regardless, it's a good idea to have rules written down, just in case the situation arises or a new player joins who is used to bigger games.

So here's what I'm thinking.

Stakes: $0.25 / $0.50 NLHE
Initial Buy-in range: $40-60
Rebuys / Addons: Can be done anytime between hands in increments of $10, up to a maximum stack of $80.

I think this rebuy rule is enough that it allows anyone who is stuck the opportunity to get it back, while maintaining the "fun poker night with buddies" atmosphere.

I am confused. So the max I can start with is $60, but I can add on up to $80? Why not just make it $80 max from the jump? Does some condition need to be met before I can do this?

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

I am confused. So the max I can start with is $60, but I can add on up to $80? Why not just make it $80 max from the jump? Does some condition need to be met before I can do this?

I've already written about 6 more paragraphs after that post explaining my evolving thinking in multiple different ways. What part do you not understand? I'll probably leave the rebuy/addon amount at $60 for the first hour or so. The purpose of the $80 is to eliminate the need to count stacks in order to do an "up to all or half the big stack" calculation.

 

[Nine_high]

I've already written about 6 more paragraphs after that post explaining my evolving thinking in multiple different ways. What part do you not understand? I'll probably leave the rebuy/addon amount at $60 for the first hour or so. The purpose of the $80 is to eliminate the need to count stacks in order to do an "up to all or half the big stack" calculation.

I see now.

I didn't understand why the max was $60, but then we could add on $20 more anytime. That just sounded like $80 max with extra steps.

So you're waiting an hour then raising the cap by $20? I guess this is fine, but it seems like a short wait for a small escalation to me. I don't see it being much different than just starting at $80.

Either way I agree it's way too much effort to fuss about max stacks and all that for an extra $20 of buy in.

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

I see now.

I didn't understand why the max was $60, but then we could add on $20 more anytime. That just sounded like $80 max with extra steps.

So you're waiting an hour then raising the cap by $20? I guess this is fine, but it seems like a short wait for a small escalation to me. I don't see it being much different than just starting at $80.

Either way I agree it's way too much effort to fuss about max stacks and all that for an extra $20 of buy in.

It's a matter of weighing what I've done at another group I play in regularly with what I know about the players in the group I'm trying to get going. They are very different groups of people. Once it's put into practice, I may determine that this doesn't work and I'll come up with something else.