Toaster
Sitting Out
BACKGROUND: I hosted my first cash game this weekend with me and an additional 3 players (4 players total). We had two players cancel last minute. We played 25c/25c blinds and everyone bought in for $25. Most of us knew the rules, but we were all very rusty. We played for about 2 hours without money just to be sure everyone understood the rules and basic strategy. I didn't want anyone getting stacked or angry because they misunderstood something.
GAMEPLAY/PROGRESSION: One player ("Player 1") knew the game well but hadn't played in a few years. He knew most of the rules, some strategy, but doesn't have a strong grasp on advanced concepts. ("Player 2") knew most of the rules and knew some strategy, but also hadn't played in a long time. ("Player 3") was a near complete novice--he knew some of the basic rules, but we spent a while before the game teaching him (this was actually pretty fun). I was probably the most competent player, but also extremely rusty.
Player 1 got stacked once, bought back in, and eventually ended the night +$1.50 (approximately). Player 2 was aggressive and (very very) easily tilted. He also had a couple bad beats (he called Player 1's all in with pocket kings--Player 2 flopped trip kings and Player 1 hit 1 of 3 outs on the river for a straight). Player 2 ended the night losing 3 buy ins. Player 3 came out of the gate guns blazing. Super aggressive and bluffed the socks off of Player 2 several hands (and tilting Player 2 quite a bit). Player 3 eventually lost a big hand (approx 50% stack) and played passively the rest of the game. He eventually lost his remaining stack at the end of the night to my all in, about 2 hands before the game broke (he was tired pulled a YOLO). I played a fairly consistent strategy, calling very light sometimes just for fun. I ended the night up 3 buy ins.
CONCERN: By the end of the night, there was some concern about the disadvantage of buying back in the game when the max stack at the table is so much larger than the buy in amount. In this case, I had about $100 on the table. When a player got stacked, they bought back in for $25 which was about 25% of the max stack. In a larger game with more players, I imagine this gap could be even larger. My goal is to play poker with friends and have fun. I want people to buy back into the game as many times as possible, not because I want them to lose more money, but because I want to keep as many players playing as possible (in this instance, if someone doesn't buy in, we are playing 3 handed).
QUESTION: Has anyone experienced this and/or have a potential solution in mind? Me and the players spent a while after the game broke discussing this. In my mind, I see only two potential ways to remedy this. The first is to allow buy in amounts larger than the original $25 (100 BB)--for example, X% of the max stack--OR to limit the size of the max stack at the table. My players didn't like the first option because late in the evening the max buy in may be much larger than they want to spend (e.g. 50% of a max stack of $100 is already twice the original buy in amount, which might be hard to stomach if you've already lost a bullet or two). I, as well as my players, understand that it's an option to buy in for less than that amount, but they also don't want to buy in for less and be at a larger disadvantage compared to the max stack. The only other option, assuming players don't want to buy in for a single bullet more than $25 and aren't going to buy in for that amount if they are at a 4:1 disadvantage compared to the max stack, is to limit the amount of chips the max stack can have on the table. My players seems to like this idea with a possible implementation being that every hour on the hour, all players with stacks above twice the buy in amount (could also be something like 3x the buy in amount) have to cash out chips above that amount. Another implementation is doing this every time someone gets felted and buys back in.
We also discussed just nixing the cash game and doing a tournament, but this is less favorable to me because of the logistics (people arriving at different times, delaying tournament start, players sitting around not playing if they bust early, etc.).
Thoughts?
Thanks!
Note: My players also unanimously agreed that they do not want to go down in stakes, say to 5c/10c game. They thought 25c/25c was a good balance for the game.
GAMEPLAY/PROGRESSION: One player ("Player 1") knew the game well but hadn't played in a few years. He knew most of the rules, some strategy, but doesn't have a strong grasp on advanced concepts. ("Player 2") knew most of the rules and knew some strategy, but also hadn't played in a long time. ("Player 3") was a near complete novice--he knew some of the basic rules, but we spent a while before the game teaching him (this was actually pretty fun). I was probably the most competent player, but also extremely rusty.
Player 1 got stacked once, bought back in, and eventually ended the night +$1.50 (approximately). Player 2 was aggressive and (very very) easily tilted. He also had a couple bad beats (he called Player 1's all in with pocket kings--Player 2 flopped trip kings and Player 1 hit 1 of 3 outs on the river for a straight). Player 2 ended the night losing 3 buy ins. Player 3 came out of the gate guns blazing. Super aggressive and bluffed the socks off of Player 2 several hands (and tilting Player 2 quite a bit). Player 3 eventually lost a big hand (approx 50% stack) and played passively the rest of the game. He eventually lost his remaining stack at the end of the night to my all in, about 2 hands before the game broke (he was tired pulled a YOLO). I played a fairly consistent strategy, calling very light sometimes just for fun. I ended the night up 3 buy ins.
CONCERN: By the end of the night, there was some concern about the disadvantage of buying back in the game when the max stack at the table is so much larger than the buy in amount. In this case, I had about $100 on the table. When a player got stacked, they bought back in for $25 which was about 25% of the max stack. In a larger game with more players, I imagine this gap could be even larger. My goal is to play poker with friends and have fun. I want people to buy back into the game as many times as possible, not because I want them to lose more money, but because I want to keep as many players playing as possible (in this instance, if someone doesn't buy in, we are playing 3 handed).
QUESTION: Has anyone experienced this and/or have a potential solution in mind? Me and the players spent a while after the game broke discussing this. In my mind, I see only two potential ways to remedy this. The first is to allow buy in amounts larger than the original $25 (100 BB)--for example, X% of the max stack--OR to limit the size of the max stack at the table. My players didn't like the first option because late in the evening the max buy in may be much larger than they want to spend (e.g. 50% of a max stack of $100 is already twice the original buy in amount, which might be hard to stomach if you've already lost a bullet or two). I, as well as my players, understand that it's an option to buy in for less than that amount, but they also don't want to buy in for less and be at a larger disadvantage compared to the max stack. The only other option, assuming players don't want to buy in for a single bullet more than $25 and aren't going to buy in for that amount if they are at a 4:1 disadvantage compared to the max stack, is to limit the amount of chips the max stack can have on the table. My players seems to like this idea with a possible implementation being that every hour on the hour, all players with stacks above twice the buy in amount (could also be something like 3x the buy in amount) have to cash out chips above that amount. Another implementation is doing this every time someone gets felted and buys back in.
We also discussed just nixing the cash game and doing a tournament, but this is less favorable to me because of the logistics (people arriving at different times, delaying tournament start, players sitting around not playing if they bust early, etc.).
Thoughts?
Thanks!
Note: My players also unanimously agreed that they do not want to go down in stakes, say to 5c/10c game. They thought 25c/25c was a good balance for the game.
