Online Home Poker (3 Viewers)

[naked_eskimo]

For anyone that may be interested in customizing your poker mavens tables, this just popped up on the poker mavens forum:

https://www.briggsoft.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3150&p=13044#p13044

This points to a website that will do some customization for a fee. You need the pro license I think for custom tables. If you are looking to remove the poker mavens logo from the lobby, that would require the Gold license, but I don't think that is what's being offered.

http://pokertables.niestudio.com/

I cannot vouch for their services as I just saw the link this morning and thought I would share it. I might give it a spin for a $35 custom table with my group name on it.

 

[LotsOfChips]

For anyone that may be interested in customizing your poker mavens tables, this just popped up on the poker mavens forum:

https://www.briggsoft.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3150&p=13044#p13044

This points to a website that will do some customization for a fee. You need the pro license I think for custom tables. If you are looking to remove the poker mavens logo from the lobby, that would require the Gold license, but I don't think that is what's being offered.

http://pokertables.niestudio.com/

I cannot vouch for their services as I just saw the link this morning and thought I would share it. I might give it a spin for a $35 custom table with my group name on it.

You can also DIY using the information here...

https://www.briggsoft.com/docs/pmavens/Templates.htm

 

[naked_eskimo]

I ordered a custom table. If anyone is interested, here is what the table I ordered looks like--please note that this is a preview, the watermarks are not on the final product.

It's fairly basic, and if I did not suck at graphic design, I would just do it myself. But for a one time $35, seemed worthwhile.

 

[deltahedge]

I ordered a custom table. If anyone is interested, here is what the table I ordered looks like:

View attachment 454357

It's fairly basic, and if I did not suck at graphic design, I would just do it myself. But for a one time $35, seemed worthwhile.

That looks great. Im considering spending the $35 for a little update/upgrade to my site. Like you, I would do it myself if I had any skill, but for $35, seems like a fair trade off.

 

[madforpancakes]

Here's a few quick color combos for custom tables without text on them if you want to get away from that drab brown carpet (click on thumbnail for full size)



And finally, one to get that real casino feel!

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

If I'm understanding correctly, it sounds like most of you only run these games with people you know. Which I completely understand, for yours AND my security. Is there some way here on PCF, or in another poker forum, where I can find a group that would be local to me? (Houston area, preferably north) I'd be happy to meet up with a couple of guys somewhere, buy them a beer (hopefully that's going to be allowed soon) and get us both feeling comfortable enough that I could join their group? I'm looking to play very low stakes. It's not about the money, it's about playing poker and interacting with people. I'm getting tired of Zinga Poker!

 

[boltonguy]

@CraigT78

 

[StackemHigh]

For anyone that may be interested in customizing your poker mavens tables, this just popped up on the poker mavens forum:

https://www.briggsoft.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3150&p=13044#p13044

This points to a website that will do some customization for a fee. You need the pro license I think for custom tables. If you are looking to remove the poker mavens logo from the lobby, that would require the Gold license, but I don't think that is what's being offered.

http://pokertables.niestudio.com/

I cannot vouch for their services as I just saw the link this morning and thought I would share it. I might give it a spin for a $35 custom table with my group name on it.

This looks to be a Major visual upgrade IMO! Will be ordering
And if Mavens can fix the fuzzy edges on the cards to look sharper on a high-res screen, that would make it better still.
Thanks for the info!

 

[LotsOfChips]

If I'm understanding correctly, it sounds like most of you only run these games with people you know. Which I completely understand, for yours AND my security. Is there some way here on PCF, or in another poker forum, where I can find a group that would be local to me? (Houston area, preferably north) I'd be happy to meet up with a couple of guys somewhere, buy them a beer (hopefully that's going to be allowed soon) and get us both feeling comfortable enough that I could join their group? I'm looking to play very low stakes. It's not about the money, it's about playing poker and interacting with people. I'm getting tired of Zinga Poker!

3 options that might help:

Peruse PCF Member Location thread (sorry, can’t paste a link from my phone), PM those you find close to your area

Start a new thread in the Home Games General forum asking to find any local members

Search the forum for keyword Houston

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

3 options that might help:

Peruse PCF Member Location thread (sorry, can’t paste a link from my phone), PM those you find close to your area

Start a new thread in the Home Games General forum asking to find any local members

Search the forum for keyword Houston

Great suggestions! Thanks!

 

[DuffCal]

I ordered a custom table. If anyone is interested, here is what the table I ordered looks like--please note that this is a preview, the watermarks are not on the final product.

View attachment 454387

It's fairly basic, and if I did not suck at graphic design, I would just do it myself. But for a one time $35, seemed worthwhile.

Great find! I found a graphic designer to create my logo and tables and he does AMAZING work. I may look at having them edit my table to give it a more 3D look.

 

[BGinGA]

If I'm understanding correctly, it sounds like most of you only run these games with people you know. Which I completely understand, for yours AND my security. Is there some way here on PCF, or in another poker forum, where I can find a group that would be local to me? (Houston area, preferably north) I'd be happy to meet up with a couple of guys somewhere, buy them a beer (hopefully that's going to be allowed soon) and get us both feeling comfortable enough that I could join their group? I'm looking to play very low stakes. It's not about the money, it's about playing poker and interacting with people. I'm getting tired of Zinga Poker!

We also run low-cost tournaments every night on pokerstars -- check out the PCF Tournaments subforum here under the Home Game Listings for details.

 

[kk405]

For those of you running ring games on PM, I am curious to know your thoughts on a few issues:

• How did you implement your player registration process? email verification required or not? why/why not?
• Do you Stop/Start your ring games for a set number of hours or let the software run 24/7?
• Is there a way to 'limit' the number of hours a particular table runs? or does it have to be done manually via Stop/Start?
• while still playing, I know a player can see his/her win/losses per table, but is there a way to see it for the day or session?

 

[waddadonk]

For those of you running ring games on PM, I am curious to know your thoughts on a few issues:

• How did you implement your player registration process? email verification required or not? why/why not?
• Do you Stop/Start your ring games for a set number of hours or let the software run 24/7?
• Is there a way to 'limit' the number of hours a particular table runs? or does it have to be done manually via Stop/Start?
• while still playing, I know a player can see his/her win/losses per table, but is there a way to see it for the day or session?

1. No, I know all the players
2. We have set time and zoom. Table is taken down after every session. When it's brought up, I pause it immediately so that most people can sit and start at the same time without having to post.
3.
4. The logs tab. Been manually doing a ctrl-f for player names to balance the books

 

[MrCatPants]

For those of you running ring games on PM, I am curious to know your thoughts on a few issues:

• How did you implement your player registration process? email verification required or not? why/why not?
• Do you Stop/Start your ring games for a set number of hours or let the software run 24/7?
• Is there a way to 'limit' the number of hours a particular table runs? or does it have to be done manually via Stop/Start?
• while still playing, I know a player can see his/her win/losses per table, but is there a way to see it for the day or session?

1. I know everyone so don't worry about this.
2. Let it run 24/7 - people can play without me there - I have reasons for that as I'm hosting both my home game and another home game that I sometimes play at.
3. Manually from what I've seen, but I could be wrong. What's the issue with leaving the table up?
4. For you, or for them? Waddonk explained how to do it for you. For the player, their bankroll balance, but it doesn't track it with as plus minus.

That said the electronic tracking has been a detriment to my game. Losing players now "realize" they are losing and how much. My whale has refused to play (at least for now) any more online as he thinks its 'rigged'. We're playing more often, and seeing more hands when we play, so things are accelerated and aspect has been really rough. Curious if anyone else has been running into similar.

 

[naked_eskimo]

I register all my players manually after asking them to send their desired username, password and email. I don't allow on demand account creation and I also have a site password enabled. My site is invitation only and friends only.

I leave games running 24/7 I have a trusted friend/player that I enabled remote admin for, so they can play even when I am not.

I too am getting feedback about how some players are just not adjusting that well to the faster online play. They feel they are losing more than normal. People tend to buy in for more money up front or over the course of the game. It's easier since all you have to do to rebuy is send an e-transfer to the designated banker. At a home game, once your wallet is empty, you're done. We play .50/$1 NLHE and last night there was over $2,000 on the table when I went to bed at 11:30 One player remarked to me in text message that the stakes feel higher and some other regular players don't feel comfortable. But nothing has changed, structure wise. It's just faster to lose and easier to keep rebuying vs a brick and mortar home game.

 

[MrCatPants]

I cut my stakes in half (to .25/50) like others have mentioned and it's still an issue @naked_eskimo . I had two pots right around 1000 in the hi lo game, both of which got scooped. In addition to the wallet issue you mentioned I think not physically putting in chips changes things. Even in the tourneys I run 2.5/3x opens live have become 4x pretty standard online.

 

[naked_eskimo]

I agree. It's just easier to fling in chips online. And the raises, as you mentioned, become silly. Last night I raised 3x UTG with AQs, one other player said what's with the tiny raise? If I open in almost any position, I try to standardize my bet sizing to avoid exploitation. A lot of my other players like to raise a minimum of 5x with medium hands and sometimes 10 or 12x with their premium hands. And then complain about the "stakes" or the amount of money in play.

I don't know if lowering the blinds would help. Those inclined to over bet and shove are still going to do it. I could maybe give more thought to limiting the max buyin. I don't love the idea of either one, as players should play responsibly, regardless of the structure.

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

@naked_eskimo @MrCatPants If you're interested, here is my perspective as someone new here, and pretty inexperienced at real money poker. I want to play poker for fun, and limit my exposure to losses. As I think about how I would structure a cash game, either home or online, I would want a limited max buy-in, not because I'm trying to keep others from being irresponsible with their own money, but to prevent a couple of guys with deep pockets who don't care if they lose $500 from dominating the game. How fun is it if a couple of big stacks are constantly raising me all-in every time I have a decent opening hand? I would expect that at a professional card room, but don't we play home games with friends to get away from that? If we're talking low stakes, say .25/.50, then why would you need more than $50 to sit down? Personally, I might even limit that to $30 or $40. With 8-10 players, that's still $300-500 on the table to start, and more after re-buys. If it's just a bunch of friends having fun, why would you need more than that? Or maybe I'm the odd ball, and no one else in your groups thinks this way?

I assume you also have a minimum, cause yeah, you don't want somebody jumping in with $5 either. I would probably do $20 or $30 min and $40 or $50 max at my own home game.

 

[naked_eskimo]

It's a tricky situation. A lot of it comes down to individual play styles and perception. For example, the one player who texted me has a very one sided way of looking at poker things. He texted to complain about the large buyins, but in our home game, he is the one who will always buyin for $300 or more late at night if he's having a bad session. I've remarked at those times about a larger stack can lead to bullying other players and some may not like it. His response is always a heated explanation about how it should not matter because no one can lose anymore than they have in front of them. But yet here he is commenting about the discomfort at so many large starting stacks. He will also only make comments about the best starting hand winning the pot when it's to his advantage. If he rivers a winner with the best starting hand, then all is fair. If someone else rivers him after he flops a set or something, and someone points out that the player did have the best hand preflop, he will snap back that who cares because "it's a five card game after all". The larger picture tends to escape those who are having a bad night or a bad run.

Even with a smaller max buyin, people are going to get lucky and build a large stack. Others are going to want to add on so that they can be in a position to double up in the right situation. That rarely happens and the larger stacks just tend to grow. Rigid structures cannot overcome poor play. No matter the structure, poor players will lose most nights. The differences between online and in person are just one more thing to gripe about rather than improving ones game.

The rapid play does create an illusion of an unfair situation, but it's really not. Players who can never fold top pair, or two pair no matter what are going to get coolered on any night in any given game. The fact that you see three times as many hands as in person makes it feel like it's happening at an unfair rate. But it's really not, people just remember it that way.

It's an interesting discussion, and I'm glad that we are having it, as I don't really know how to address it, or if it really needs addressing.

 

[Irish]

Like many others above, Mavens is essentially just a virtual version of how I typically run my live games, which are all low stakes. I upgraded to Pro in order to run MTT and secured the site to put some player concerns at ease. I know and have played with every player face to face, and we use an 8x8 or hangouts video chat when we play. Transitioning from live to online, I kept the same tourney structure but reduced the levels from 20 to 15 minutes, and our 25¢/25¢ NLHE cash games to 10¢/20¢, as others have noted you play so much faster it's a lot easier to go broke quick. I upped the standard turn clock from 30 seconds to 60 seconds, just to help slow down the game and allow for more personal banter.

Answers inline below:

For those of you running ring games on PM, I am curious to know your thoughts on a few issues:

• How did you implement your player registration process? email verification required or not? why/why not? - Didn't do this at first with the Lite version, but added it once I went Pro/SSL secured (about a week later). Two reasons - (1) to make the site appear more "legit" and (2) to allow folks to be able to reset their password via verification so I didn't need to do it manually
• Do you Stop/Start your ring games for a set number of hours or let the software run 24/7? - Both. I keep a few cash, SNGs, and head's up tourney tables (freeroll) open all the time, so if someone wants to play a last minute game without me, they can. For our scheduled cash nights, I open a special table and then pause it until we're ready, just like an in person game. Paused at the end as well to allow everyone to leave without catching a random hand.
• Is there a way to 'limit' the number of hours a particular table runs? or does it have to be done manually via Stop/Start? I believe there's a way to schedule a specific start time for a tournament, but not a cash game. I think all stops have to be done manually.
• while still playing, I know a player can see his/her win/losses per table, but is there a way to see it for the day or session? Not that I know of directly. Once you leave a table, your cash is put back into your account. Easiest way is just to right down your balance when you log in and then note it again just before you log off.

 

[LotsOfChips]

@naked_eskimo @MrCatPants If you're interested, here is my perspective as someone new here, and pretty inexperienced at real money poker. I want to play poker for fun, and limit my exposure to losses. As I think about how I would structure a cash game, either home or online, I would want a limited max buy-in, not because I'm trying to keep others from being irresponsible with their own money, but to prevent a couple of guys with deep pockets who don't care if they lose $500 from dominating the game. How fun is it if a couple of big stacks are constantly raising me all-in every time I have a decent opening hand? I would expect that at a professional card room, but don't we play home games with friends to get away from that? If we're talking low stakes, say .25/.50, then why would you need more than $50 to sit down? Personally, I might even limit that to $30 or $40. With 8-10 players, that's still $300-500 on the table to start, and more after re-buys. If it's just a bunch of friends having fun, why would you need more than that? Or maybe I'm the odd ball, and no one else in your groups thinks this way?

I assume you also have a minimum, cause yeah, you don't want somebody jumping in with $5 either. I would probably do $20 or $30 min and $40 or $50 max at my own home game.

I understand where you’re coming from, and I also limit max buyin and max transfers for cash games. But the amounts you are talking about don’t match the blinds you are proposing.

Ideally in NLHE you want a starting stack of min 80-100 BB and up to 200 BB. Plus if a player loses his stack, you want him to be able to buy back in, or he may be done on the first hand ( seen it happen).

So if you want to let players risk less than $50 per night, you should probably lower the blinds to.05/.10 or .10/.10, with a min $10 max $20 buy in, $50 transfer limit.

That’s probably a bit lower than you might want, so consider .25/.25 with a $20 min $40 max (80 BB/160 BB) and an $80 transfer limit or $20 min $50 max $100 transfer limit. The latter might still allow the deeper pockets to dominate the shallower pockets however.

Play around with those numbers until you get something that you and your group are comfortable with.

 

[MrCatPants]

Part of it too I think is most peoples personal situations are strained in one way or another (though not everyone). I have regulars who are furloughed, had hours cut, small business owners who are hurting, etc. But I also have retirees, people whose income has not been affected or have wealth so it's not of consequence.

That said everyone just seems more on edge. I've had a couple players get bad beated or coolered and just log out of mavens and voice and maybe skip a game and then come back. Live no one would ever "tantrum" like that.

And then my "rigged" guy (who will do things like call pot size bets on the river with the 4th best low and no high worth a salt and complain about getting scooped)...really not sure what to do about that prevailing "online is rigged" attitude. I think it's just looser play and more hands leads to more "interesting" situations in a session...especially for players who are loose/passive overall.

 

[TX_Golf_N_Poker]

I understand where you’re coming from, and I also limit max buyin and max transfers for cash games. But the amounts you are talking about don’t match the blinds you are proposing.

Ideally in NLHE you want a starting stack of min 80-100 BB and up to 200 BB. Plus if a player loses his stack, you want him to be able to buy back in, or he may be done on the first hand ( seen it happen).

So if you want to let players risk less than $50 per night, you should probably lower the blinds to.05/.10 or .10/.10, with a min $10 max $20 buy in, $50 transfer limit.

That’s probably a bit lower than you might want, so consider .25/.25 with a $20 min $40 max (80 BB/160 BB) and an $80 transfer limit or $20 min $50 max $100 transfer limit. The latter might still allow the deeper pockets to dominate the shallower pockets however.

Play around with those numbers until you get something that you and your group are comfortable with.

Thanks. Appreciate the suggestions. As I said, I'm very inexperienced at real money games. I'm not surprised if the numbers I used don't work in real games. I was mostly trying to make the point that there could be a place for max buy-ins. I believe @naked_eskimo had stated that he has no max in his games. What that amount is would be up to each individual person running a game. I'll definitely consider either lower blinds or a higher max when I start hosting my own games. What you wrote does make sense to me. Thanks!

 

[naked_eskimo]

Trying to find a solution to risk and loss management in the game structure will just discourage aggression, which in my opinion goes against playing good poker. Tight and aggressive can be good. Maniacs are good for the game as they keep the action going and good players reap the rewards. This is especially true in no limit. Tweaking the game so much gets to a point where you might as well just play limit poker. Dealing with hyper aggressive big stacks is just part of playing poker. I wish there were more of them

People are going to play to their comfort level in any game. If the blinds and buyins are reduced drastically, you may lose some players and gain some others. Also, if reduced to a much lower point than your group is used to, then people are going to play much looser. They will still have the same lose rate and probably just end up rebuying more.

As noted, I do not have a max bet or a max buyin. I am following this discussion closely and may be inspired to revisit that decision. I know some of my players would like it, some would not. It's hard to please everyone.

Someone could still lose $300 in a .25/.50 game as easily as in a .50/$1 game if they are poor players or have a bad run of cards. I tend to look at blinds in a ring game in the sense of how much do I need to sit down at that game. This should also translate into how much you are comfortable losing. For me, I always sit with 100BB Our group has been playing .50/$1 forever. I don't think the blinds are the problem. Adjusting to the faster play and having a deeper pocket at the table (wallet vs e-transfer again), is more the problem. Not the blinds or the buyins, I think.

I'd be curious to change my blinds to .25/.50 and cap buyins at $50 I'm not sure how that might change things. I think people will still bet out of proportion to the blinds and pot size and just end up buying in for $50 4 times rather than $100 twice, for example.

 

[LotsOfChips]

Trying to find a solution to risk and loss management in the game structure will just discourage aggression, which in my opinion goes against playing good poker. Tight and aggressive can be good...

...If the blinds and buyins are reduced drastically, you may lose some players and gain some others. Also, if reduced to a much lower point than your group is used to, then people are going to play much looser. They will still have the same lose rate and probably just end up rebuying more.

I know some of my players would like it, some would not. It's hard to please everyone.

You hit the nail on the head. Introducing artificial limits does change the game. Whether for the good or the bad, that is up to the perspective of the individual players.

For my group there are about three deeper pocketed players and 6-10 shallower pocketed players. The former want to up the limits so they can take more money from the latter, who will stop playing if they lose too much or too often.

I set and adjusted the limits to balance the needs of both groups. Because of Covid, many players are playing (and losing) much more than normal, at a time when many of them are facing restricted earnings, so I’m trying to factor that into the equation as well.

 

[naked_eskimo]

Playing at really low stakes or blinds than you are used to can be hard. I remember a few years ago when I used to play online often for money, I decided to "reset". I wasn't winning any more and decided I needed to learn the basics again from the ground up.

I bought a couple of well reviewed books on beating micro stakes and headed off to the .05/.10 tables for a fresh start. It went well at first, but after a while it got hard to care. I found myself being that guy that would bet and raise way out of proportion to the game. Playing lower stakes can require a different kind of discipline if those stakes are way lower than you are used to.

 

[naked_eskimo]

Changing the game structure may help mitigate losses at the per hand level, but if a player keeps rebuying and playing the same way, then over the course of the session, they will probably end up around the same point. Sure the pots lost might be smaller, but they would still add up as they constantly rebuy.

Another thing I have noticed with our private online home games might actually have more to do with banking fees. After a month of playing, some of us are discovering that our fees per e-transfer are way higher than we thought. Not many of us had ever really done many e-transfers in the past. I think some people are doing larger transfers for a game to avoid multiple small transfers and the per transfer fee.

 

[LotsOfChips]

Changing the game structure may help mitigate losses at the per hand level, but if a player keeps rebuying and playing the same way, then over the course of the session, they will probably end up around the same point. Sure the pots lost might be smaller, but they would still add up as they constantly rebuy.

I require all transfers to be completed one hour before game time and don’t accept transfers while playing. I also limit the total transfer amount to 2x max buyin. So the limits do have an effect on possible losses.

Not what you would see at a casino, or even at a live home game that I would host. Definitely a response to circumstances of the group, more than good and proper poker.

 

[naked_eskimo]

If one of your players busted their single max buyin early in the game, then that person is done for the night?