Vince Bustillo
Straight
So I'm going to be hosting my first ever home cash game. It's going to be 25¢/50¢ game. Minimum buy in would be $25. My question is what should the maximum buy in be for a small cash game like this be? Thanks for your help.
Cash Game New Cash Game (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Vince Bustillo
- Start date
detroitdad
Royal Flush
We started with a 60 max buy in. We've moved to a 100 max buy in. I prefer that honestly. I like deeper stacks.
Have you talked to your group?
Have you talked to your group?
OP
OP
Vince Bustillo
Straight
Not yet just trying to get a general consensus here. Some of my players don't have very deep pockets while others do. Just trying to keep my cheaper players from being bullied too much.
detroitdad
Royal Flush
I don't habe a min buy in. It's rare of my players don't buy in for the max.
I've also played in .25/.50 games with a 40 max buy in. I don't prefer that. Ultimately it worked fine.
OP
OP
Vince Bustillo
Straight
So no minimum and max of $40. I'll try that and see how it goes.
Rhodeman77
Straight Flush
I do a $60 to $200 buy in for 25c/50c blind games. It is deeper than most people do.
I prefer it because it creates deep enough stacks to play deep stack poker with 4 and even 5 bets preflop. On the low end it allows for good short stack play as well but not too short that it annoys the deep stacks and creates a bunch of side pots all the time.
I prefer it because it creates deep enough stacks to play deep stack poker with 4 and even 5 bets preflop. On the low end it allows for good short stack play as well but not too short that it annoys the deep stacks and creates a bunch of side pots all the time.
If you're worried about the max buy-in being a problem you could consider playing $.25/$.25. You could still do a max buy-in of $60 so the game plays deeper, but players who have limited bankrolls still have more BBs
For .25/.50, I always do $50 to $100 -- that's 100-200 BB, which allows everyone room to play. All my no-limit home games use that same 100-200 BB formula.
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
Keeping the max buy-in smaller benefits the weaker player(s).
I play a weekly game where the buy-in is capped at $20. This starts out as a very short stacked game, but eventually things get deep enough. That $20 cap offers some protection from a) losers getting too much money into the game and b) helps the weaker players on the rare nights they get way ahead.
If you don't know how the players are going to feel about the stakes, I think it better to start lower and go up if needed vs opening up too big and perhaps burning people out the first night.
DrStrange
I play a weekly game where the buy-in is capped at $20. This starts out as a very short stacked game, but eventually things get deep enough. That $20 cap offers some protection from a) losers getting too much money into the game and b) helps the weaker players on the rare nights they get way ahead.
If you don't know how the players are going to feel about the stakes, I think it better to start lower and go up if needed vs opening up too big and perhaps burning people out the first night.
DrStrange
justsomedude
Straight Flush
This has been discussed here a few times, and I agree with @Pokerdweebz that's it better to lower the blinds, than try to get people to play .25/.50 with limited stacks. Sitting with $20 or $40 in a .25/.50 game is just 40x and 80x blinds, respectively. That is not a lot to "work" with.
See my previous post on this matter...
Per some of the comments above, there can be some tension if some players in a home game are much better bankrolled (or much more willing to gamble) than others.
I knew a guy who claimed to be a pro, who would show up at a friendly 1/2 game with three grand.
Most people bought in for $75-$125, and few were prepared to rebuy more than 1-2 times. This guy would buy in short at first for $60 and play BINGO with it—all in every hand preflop three hands in a row, that kind of thing. He would lose the $60, usually, then buy in for $200, and start the same routine. If he busted again, he would rebuy for $500. And then again, if necessary.
Sometimes he'd blow through a 2-3 grand and leave, but often he would bait people into calling him, and eventually build a monster stack, which just led to more LAGgy play.
Essentially, people had to win multiple flips against him to shut his act down. To the extent that he was willing to risk the whole three grand in a game where the other players combined may have less than total that in their pockets, it was probably a smart strategy. But not a strategy that generates good feeling at a small home game. (NOTE: This guy was in fact a skilled player, perfectly capable of playing TAG or even nitty if it suited him, and knew well enough to throw away hands when people tightened up, only pushing back with their monsters.)
On the one hand, you could say that this kind of thing is good for a small game, to the extent that it puts a lot more cash on the table than would normally be there.
But it was a big turn-off to most of the players, and the game slowly died off. People weren’t there to blow through their weekly home game poker money in 20 minutes. While 1-2 players would inevitably profit from this guy’s bullying as he laddered up his buy-ins, others would bust trying to catch him, and then leave in disgust. His approach felt kind of like a giant eff you to the group, in part because it was accompanied by constant chatter.
I think in that scenario if the host had instituted a $150 buy-in rule, still allowing people to reload, then this guy could play his “I dare you” game, but the game might have had a less toxic feel.
I knew a guy who claimed to be a pro, who would show up at a friendly 1/2 game with three grand.
Most people bought in for $75-$125, and few were prepared to rebuy more than 1-2 times. This guy would buy in short at first for $60 and play BINGO with it—all in every hand preflop three hands in a row, that kind of thing. He would lose the $60, usually, then buy in for $200, and start the same routine. If he busted again, he would rebuy for $500. And then again, if necessary.
Sometimes he'd blow through a 2-3 grand and leave, but often he would bait people into calling him, and eventually build a monster stack, which just led to more LAGgy play.
Essentially, people had to win multiple flips against him to shut his act down. To the extent that he was willing to risk the whole three grand in a game where the other players combined may have less than total that in their pockets, it was probably a smart strategy. But not a strategy that generates good feeling at a small home game. (NOTE: This guy was in fact a skilled player, perfectly capable of playing TAG or even nitty if it suited him, and knew well enough to throw away hands when people tightened up, only pushing back with their monsters.)
On the one hand, you could say that this kind of thing is good for a small game, to the extent that it puts a lot more cash on the table than would normally be there.
But it was a big turn-off to most of the players, and the game slowly died off. People weren’t there to blow through their weekly home game poker money in 20 minutes. While 1-2 players would inevitably profit from this guy’s bullying as he laddered up his buy-ins, others would bust trying to catch him, and then leave in disgust. His approach felt kind of like a giant eff you to the group, in part because it was accompanied by constant chatter.
I think in that scenario if the host had instituted a $150 buy-in rule, still allowing people to reload, then this guy could play his “I dare you” game, but the game might have had a less toxic feel.
Rhodeman77
Straight Flush
@Taghkanic if the game is $1/2 most people should be buying in for $200 and have 2 or 3 rebuys with them. I would also say that $1/2 is more than friendly game especially is it allowed rebuys for $500.
If most of the players were uncomfortable they should be playing lower stakes like 25c/50c with a $100 max buy-in/rebuy.
I know I would love a guy like that at my games!!
If most of the players were uncomfortable they should be playing lower stakes like 25c/50c with a $100 max buy-in/rebuy.
I know I would love a guy like that at my games!!
At a casino, I would agree. I would normally buy in for $300 and have at least another $300 behind.
However, this was a rinky-dink home game where people had been playing that way for a long time. It had always been 1/2 and buy-ins were smaller than usual. The new arrival decided to change the culture, which was his right, but it killed the action. So in the long run, it was counterproductive for him.
WedgeRock
Royal Flush
I would make the max buyin at least 100 BB ($50). You can go more if you players have the rolls and like playing deeper.
bentax1978
4 of a Kind
This would be my suggestion as well. If OP wants to limit the max buy-in to $40 or $60, then I think blinds of $0.25/0.25 would be preferable to $0.25/0.50.
Maybe this was covered, but how do people handle reloads in their home game?
In most games I play in, there is an initial limit (say, 100BB), and that is also the max that you can buy back in with...
But I have sometimes seen it where one can buy back in for as much as 1/2 the biggest stack at the table, or equal to the biggest stack. So if someone has run it up to 500BB, you could buy in for 250 or 500 bigs, though your first buy was 100.
I’m wondering what the standard rationale for each method is. (I have my own thoughts on it, but wondered what conventional wisdom is here).
In most games I play in, there is an initial limit (say, 100BB), and that is also the max that you can buy back in with...
But I have sometimes seen it where one can buy back in for as much as 1/2 the biggest stack at the table, or equal to the biggest stack. So if someone has run it up to 500BB, you could buy in for 250 or 500 bigs, though your first buy was 100.
I’m wondering what the standard rationale for each method is. (I have my own thoughts on it, but wondered what conventional wisdom is here).
Why not go with .05/.10 blinds and a $25 buy-in? Because blinds start the action. That is all. The idea that you can double how deep your game plays by simply reducing your BB by .25 is somewhat silly if the buy-in amount is of no concern to a small handful of players at the table who like to play for more than a couple of dollars pre-flop. (By all means, go with .25/.25 if that structure is going to effect your players betting behavior.)
$25 to $50 is good if you are hosting a game for beginner and intermediary players.
You may want to consider setting a higher minimum buy-in if your group consists of experienced players.
$25 to $50 is good if you are hosting a game for beginner and intermediary players.
You may want to consider setting a higher minimum buy-in if your group consists of experienced players.
Last edited:
churlbut18
Full House
There has been a lot of prior discussion in this forum on this topic. It would be worthwhile going back and reading some of those.
I ran a poll earlier this year, and although the responses varied a bit, the most common was a minimum of 80 BB and a maximum of 200 BB (or half the big stack). So for $0.25/$0.50, you'd be looking at a buy in and rebuy range of $40 - $100.
Then you can either adjust your table stakes up or down, keeping this 80BB-200BB range, or play with a shorter/deeper stack.
I ran a poll earlier this year, and although the responses varied a bit, the most common was a minimum of 80 BB and a maximum of 200 BB (or half the big stack). So for $0.25/$0.50, you'd be looking at a buy in and rebuy range of $40 - $100.
Then you can either adjust your table stakes up or down, keeping this 80BB-200BB range, or play with a shorter/deeper stack.
Do you have a link to a particular thread you would recommend?
That’s helpful; thanks.
Pardon the ramble... Feel free not to read. But FWIW:
While the above formula matches some of the minimum/maximum buyins at my nearest casino (not quite exactly—it works for their 2/5 game, for example, but not their 1/2 game), my own feeling is that home cash games are a different animal, with each setting and group having different ideal set-ups.
In the home cash games I have played in regularly or semi-regularly, I would say there are three main considerations for their hosts (to the extent that they think consciously about game structure at all):
For each of these three items, it matters not just how each player is situated, but how much variation there is among them.
The biggest challenge I sometimes see comes when there is a lot of diversity in players' finances, their skills, and their goals. If everyone has about the same amount of money to spend, has a similar skill set, and has a similar outlook on the purpose of game, setting it up is easy. It can get stale, but there aren't many tensions.
But if you have some friends for whom a $100 buy-in is a stretch, but others who would be happy to sit down with $2,000 in front of them, then getting a game together is not so simple. Someone is going to be unhappy, or left out. I tend to lean toward trying to make it possible for the less affluent players to get in the game, without making it so cheap that we can never attract better-bankrolled players.
Meanwhile, if several players are much better than the rest, and take everyone else’s money very consistently, the game tends to fall apart, unless there is something else about it that makes up for it (in fun, or learning, or some other draw, such as watching Monday Night Football simultaneously). Unless the losing players just have so much money that they just don’t care they have to have some other reason to keep coming back.
Some examples:
I know of an infamous home game in my region which is hosted and attended mainly by wealthy professionals. The stakes are high, with the potential for a big score. Several friends who attend this game regularly say that the host and his friends are jerks; they would normally never choose to spend an evening with them. *But* the core group are apparently lousy at poker, and the game can be hugely profitable for smart players who are willing to tolerate the main group’s behavior. In a game like that, if you are properly bankrolled and think you have a serious skill edge, it would be great for the stakes to be high and for the buy-in structure to allow you to play very deep... It just happens that I have no interest in joining such a game, even though I’m bankrolled for it and it sounds like I might make some good money there, because I value the social component of poker too much. If I want to play just for money, I go to a casino.
On the flipside, I have sometimes played in another home game where the host and the players don’t have that much money, and mainly play for laughs. It is a very gamble-y game, with ultra-low buy-ins. The play is mostly shortstacked, with people repeatedly buying in for $20 and taking crazy shots. It is sometimes a lot of fun, but I rarely go anymore because of the BINGO play. The buy-in structure greatly reduces your skill edge, and means that over time pretty much everyone is just passing money back and forth. You go way up and way down on each game night, and over the course of several months everyone winds up pretty much even. It can be fun, but not a place where you can really work on your game, except I suppose for dealing with that very particular environment.
In my own game, I continue to feel the challenge of setting buy-ins and structures (for both cash and tournaments) which balance the interests, resources and abilities of a relatively diverse group. I have a roster currently of about 25-30 invitees, and work hard to keep up a regular twice-monthly turnout of 14-18 players. I have been tweaking the details of my poker night every six months or so to keep it going, so far with success; but it requires constant attention and periodic adjustment.
I know, TL;DR, but for the few who got this far down, I am curious what thoughts if any you have on the above.
While the above formula matches some of the minimum/maximum buyins at my nearest casino (not quite exactly—it works for their 2/5 game, for example, but not their 1/2 game), my own feeling is that home cash games are a different animal, with each setting and group having different ideal set-ups.
In the home cash games I have played in regularly or semi-regularly, I would say there are three main considerations for their hosts (to the extent that they think consciously about game structure at all):
1) The players’ financial situations;
2) The players' skill levels; and
3) Whether they play more for fun, or for profit.
2) The players' skill levels; and
3) Whether they play more for fun, or for profit.
For each of these three items, it matters not just how each player is situated, but how much variation there is among them.
The biggest challenge I sometimes see comes when there is a lot of diversity in players' finances, their skills, and their goals. If everyone has about the same amount of money to spend, has a similar skill set, and has a similar outlook on the purpose of game, setting it up is easy. It can get stale, but there aren't many tensions.
But if you have some friends for whom a $100 buy-in is a stretch, but others who would be happy to sit down with $2,000 in front of them, then getting a game together is not so simple. Someone is going to be unhappy, or left out. I tend to lean toward trying to make it possible for the less affluent players to get in the game, without making it so cheap that we can never attract better-bankrolled players.
Meanwhile, if several players are much better than the rest, and take everyone else’s money very consistently, the game tends to fall apart, unless there is something else about it that makes up for it (in fun, or learning, or some other draw, such as watching Monday Night Football simultaneously). Unless the losing players just have so much money that they just don’t care they have to have some other reason to keep coming back.
Some examples:
I know of an infamous home game in my region which is hosted and attended mainly by wealthy professionals. The stakes are high, with the potential for a big score. Several friends who attend this game regularly say that the host and his friends are jerks; they would normally never choose to spend an evening with them. *But* the core group are apparently lousy at poker, and the game can be hugely profitable for smart players who are willing to tolerate the main group’s behavior. In a game like that, if you are properly bankrolled and think you have a serious skill edge, it would be great for the stakes to be high and for the buy-in structure to allow you to play very deep... It just happens that I have no interest in joining such a game, even though I’m bankrolled for it and it sounds like I might make some good money there, because I value the social component of poker too much. If I want to play just for money, I go to a casino.
On the flipside, I have sometimes played in another home game where the host and the players don’t have that much money, and mainly play for laughs. It is a very gamble-y game, with ultra-low buy-ins. The play is mostly shortstacked, with people repeatedly buying in for $20 and taking crazy shots. It is sometimes a lot of fun, but I rarely go anymore because of the BINGO play. The buy-in structure greatly reduces your skill edge, and means that over time pretty much everyone is just passing money back and forth. You go way up and way down on each game night, and over the course of several months everyone winds up pretty much even. It can be fun, but not a place where you can really work on your game, except I suppose for dealing with that very particular environment.
In my own game, I continue to feel the challenge of setting buy-ins and structures (for both cash and tournaments) which balance the interests, resources and abilities of a relatively diverse group. I have a roster currently of about 25-30 invitees, and work hard to keep up a regular twice-monthly turnout of 14-18 players. I have been tweaking the details of my poker night every six months or so to keep it going, so far with success; but it requires constant attention and periodic adjustment.
I know, TL;DR, but for the few who got this far down, I am curious what thoughts if any you have on the above.
GoStumpy
Flush
It's easy.
.25/.50 cent have $25 min, $50 max. If people have more money and want bigger stacks, $100 max.
That's it.
You shouldn't be stretching the game to weird levels just to TRY and appease certain players, you're the host, set the stakes, set the buyin, and stick to it.
.25/.50 cent have $25 min, $50 max. If people have more money and want bigger stacks, $100 max.
That's it.
You shouldn't be stretching the game to weird levels just to TRY and appease certain players, you're the host, set the stakes, set the buyin, and stick to it.
It’s not trying to *appease* anyone. It’s trying to find the optimal level which mixes fun and profit for the most number of my regulars.
Example: One of the guys I like playing with most—great guy, solid player—stocks shelves at a supermarket. He has been in our game for a long time. But there are weeks when he can't make it because his personal finances are tight. And there are other players in that same situation.
By the same token, I have some players who would buy in for 3, 4, 5 times our current stakes without blinking.
So sure, I could bump up the stakes in both our tournament and our cash game (make the $100 tourney $250, and the 1/2 cash game 2/5). I know exactly what this would accomplish: We'd have a one table tournament instead of a two table tournament, and 4-5 people for cash instead of 8-9.
We'd have the same or a little more money in play, but half the people. And that would be less enjoyable—not seeing half the guys for poker night anymore.
Or I could reduce all the stakes, and that would open up the game to a wider audience. But I don't really want to go to three tables, and some of the better-bankrolled players would leave.
Still trying to find the sweet spot.
Example: One of the guys I like playing with most—great guy, solid player—stocks shelves at a supermarket. He has been in our game for a long time. But there are weeks when he can't make it because his personal finances are tight. And there are other players in that same situation.
By the same token, I have some players who would buy in for 3, 4, 5 times our current stakes without blinking.
So sure, I could bump up the stakes in both our tournament and our cash game (make the $100 tourney $250, and the 1/2 cash game 2/5). I know exactly what this would accomplish: We'd have a one table tournament instead of a two table tournament, and 4-5 people for cash instead of 8-9.
We'd have the same or a little more money in play, but half the people. And that would be less enjoyable—not seeing half the guys for poker night anymore.
Or I could reduce all the stakes, and that would open up the game to a wider audience. But I don't really want to go to three tables, and some of the better-bankrolled players would leave.
Still trying to find the sweet spot.
GoStumpy
Flush
^^ I was answering the OP who asked about a .25/.50 game... I gave the end-all answer to that question... max buyin $50, unless your players want to play deep, ask them, and it can be $100. Anything else is just weird.
crussader
Flush
Had a situation like this once. It was a game with a single .25 blind. Buy-in of $20-$40. Rebuys of $10-$40. We shut down the excessively agro deep pockets by setting a rule that once your buy-in and rebuys hit $100 for the evening, you're done. No more rebuys.
Worked quite well.
AWenger
Full House
I absoultely hate this rule. Here's an example why -- let's say I buy in for $40, get dealt AA, get it all-in preflop, and get bad beat and lose. Rebuy for $40 again, get bad beat again, and now the host tells me I can only rebuy for another $20, and if I lose that $20, whether a bad beat or not, I have to leave the game!?! Makes no sense. I've played in games before, where I lost my first 4 buy-ins, but was able to make it all back, but I wouldn't even have the chance to do that under these rules.
I prefer to 'shut down the excessively agro deep pockets' by playing better poker than they do (or at least trying to play better poker). If hosts of some of the games I played in ever tried to 'shut down the agro players' with such a rule, the regulars would mutiny against the host. Agro players are the types of players that can make the game exciting and drive the action.
If your player pool is a group of more casual friends that likes playing smaller stakes, I'm all for lowering the blinds and/or lowering the buy-ins (to say $20 or $30), or playing some variant of Limit poker instead of NL, not by assigning an arbitrary cap to the total buy-in amount per night.
crussader
Flush
You like a high action game. I get. A lot of people feel that way. That's why we had bigger games two other nights per week where you could find all the action you could want. However, believe it or not, there are plenty of people out there who don't want to play a high action game where they're having to make decisions for all their chips every other orbit because someone keeps going all in. So we set aside a third night with a game tailored to them. The problem was the high action players jumped in the game because they didn't have anything else to do that night and ran over the table. And like it or not the rule worked as intended, because those players stopped coming and the neophytes that remained found the game much more enjoyable.
Sounds like that crowd would be better suited for a limit game perhaps?
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
Similar threads
