Cash Game Question about leveling the playing field in a cash game (2 Viewers)

[upNdown]

It's less about risk tolerance than it's about the dynamics when someone is short and multiple players are deep. Deep players are playing a wider range, and the short stack can play with a tighter range (and hence, better cards). The short stack has an advantage when the deep stacks are playing against each other.

Right. I didn’t want to go too deeply into it because it would take a lot of words just to explain my understanding of the concept (which isn’t complete.) I only mentioned it to illustrate the point that stack size (within reason) doesn’t mean a whole lot in cash games, to terms of “fairness” or whatever.

 

[Poker Zombie]

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.

Getting a new game off the ground takes time, patience, and word of mouth.

Because your game was so small, the player that rebought 3x had (on average) doubled up the rest of the table. At a 10 player table 3 rebuys would only increase the average stack about 14%. Of course, variance can still dump all the chips to a single player, but it is less likely at a full table.

My first cash game (many years ago) I did the same thing - limiting rebuys to the initial buy-in. It was decidedly a bad idea, and I now allow up to 50% the big stack, although it is rare to see a rebuy any larger than the initial buy-in, because that is commonly equal to or less than 1/2 the big stack. The game is also much bigger now, so chips tend to be better distributed.

My advice:

1. Tournaments. Allow a rebuy for the tournament, and adjust the structure so you have X number of hours before the Big Blind < 1/20th the starting stack. I have found that that is the time when players start getting eliminated wholesale. Before that players can be, but seldom are, eliminated more than once. I set the X at 2 hours for a 4.5 hour game.
2. Play Limit. I prefer NL, but limit is my go-to for new games when a tournament isn't feasible.
3. Allow up to 50% the big stack rebuys. Let players know it's not mandatory, and they can still rebuy for just $20. It's not an absolute, its a buy-in range of "$20 up to 1/2 the biggest stack at the table"

 

[Moxie Mike]

Seriously, the length that people will go to not play limit is appalling.

Benefits of LIMIT poker:
-more of a friendly game
-much more simple
-faster
-easier on newbies
-stacks don't matter
-no "sick reads" or grand standing
-no getting stacked in one hand
-Easier to incorporate multiple games

Drawbacks of LIMIT poker:
-not on TV

Agreed on all these points. The only thing I'd add is that fixed limit isn't suited to every poker variant. Games like Omaha and Holdem are a drag when it comes to FL betting structures and it's not difficult to understand why players of just about every playing style don't prefer them.

 

[Legend5555]

I get what you're saying but I don't entirely agree. If the goal in a cash game is to maximize your EV of any given situation, having your opponent covered is a significant factor in that.

It has literally zero bearing on a hand. Having someone covered is competely irrelevant since all that matters is the size of the smaller stack in a given hand.

If it's a psychological thing about having a bigger stack, then I'd simply argue that's irrelevant to good play. If it's not that, then I have no clue what you are getting at.

"Does a standard buy in give you enough to protect your big hands (rockets, cowboys, ladies) from your big stacks just thinking they can win the lotto that hand?"

This is also irrelevant. If people are going to call of lighter with a big stack to pre flop to raises and 3 bets, then having a shorter stack can actually be a benefit as the big stack's implied odds will suck.

 

[Machine]

This is also irrelevant. If people are going to call of lighter with a big stack to pre flop to raises and 3 bets, then having a shorter stack can actually be a benefit as the big stack's implied odds will suck.

Nothing like calling an over bet of say 50 bucks on a 20 pot, to hit a 4 outer, make your hand, and now you can't get paid off.

Almost better to burn 30 bucks with a torch every other time this situation comes up, because this isn't even a coin flip over time.

 

[navels]

I get what you're saying but I don't entirely agree. If the goal in a cash game is to maximize your EV of any given situation, having your opponent covered is a significant factor in that.

It has literally zero bearing on a hand. Having someone covered is competely irrelevant since all that matters is the size of the smaller stack in a given hand.

If it's a psychological thing about having a bigger stack, then I'd simply argue that's irrelevant to good play. If it's not that, then I have no clue what you are getting at.

I'm assuming Mike meant "having your opponents covered is a significant factor". Does that give you a clue?

 

[Moxie Mike]

It has literally zero bearing on a hand. Having someone covered is competely irrelevant since all that matters is the size of the smaller stack in a given hand.

OK let me give you an example:

Imagine a game where there's a big stack who's showing themselves to be a terrible player... bad preflop discipline, calling bets and drawing out despite terrible odds, etc. Let's say that player has luckboxed their way to a stack of 500BBs.

As a good player, you're patiently sitting at the table waiting for your opportunity to win their chips. But you might only get one opportunity. So what stack size would allow you to maximize your EV in that situation? A standard 100BB buy-in? Or if you had them covered?

So in other words, what I'm saying is that if maximizing EV is the goal, AND you are the superior player, a bigger stack is the best tool to accomplish this.

 

[Legend5555]

I'm assuming Mike meant "having your opponents covered is a significant factor". Does that give you a clue?

It really isn't a factor at all. Stack size is important in how you play hands. But having people covered only matters in that you can win bigger pots if you are better than your opponents. Having people covered offers no strategic benefit as your play is dictated by the smaller/smallest stack size involved in any given hand. You might as well not have a stack bigger than the next biggest involved in any hand.

 

[navels]

It really isn't a factor at all. Stack size is important in how you play hands. But having people covered only matters in that you can win bigger pots if you are better than your opponents.

Egggggsactly.

 

[Legend5555]

OK let me give you an example:

Imagine a game where there's a big stack who's showing themselves to be a terrible player... bad preflop discipline, calling bets and drawing out despite terrible odds, etc. Let's say that player has luckboxed their way to a stack of 500BBs.

As a good player, you're patiently sitting at the table waiting for your opportunity to win their chips. But you might only get one opportunity. So what stack size would allow you to maximize your EV in that situation? A standard 100BB buy-in? Or if you had them covered?

So in other words, what I'm saying is that if maximizing EV is the goal, AND you are the superior player, a bigger stack is the best tool to accomplish this.

That's not what we've been arguing. The argument was having a smaller stack is a strategic disadvantage. If you are better than your opponents, then it's obvious you want to cover them. That was never in debate. Proper strategic play in a given hand at given stack sizes (what I thought was being discussed) is a different thing than playing a big stack against other big stacks for max profit.

 

[Legend5555]

Egggggsactly.

See my post above

 

[navels]

I think everyone here knows that in a particular hand only the effective stack size matters.

 

[Legend5555]

Long story short. Playing a short stack against big stacks confers no strategic disadvantage. Just a potential profitability disadvantage.

 

[Legend5555]

I think everyone here knows that in a particular hand only the effective stack size matters.

I don't necessarily think it's a given that the OP understands this.

 

[Legend5555]

I don't necessarily think it's a given that the OP understands this.

At least not in the context of strategy and how it affects the play of certain hands. They likely understand the concept of table stakes.

 

[kaimat]

My game sounds very similar to yours: small group of friends (6-8 total players) playing .25/.50 blinds.

We start the night with a quick sit-and-go style tournament. Usually 150-200bb, $15 buy-in (with a $5 bounty so I can use all of my fancy bounty chips), and no rebuys. This might last three hours or longer depending on how many breaks we take and how often people get distracted with conversation as none of us is a serious poker player.

Then we transition to a .25/.50 cash game for a few hours until enough people decide to call it a night. If someone busts they can buy back in for whatever, but these tend to get smaller as the night goes on as people just want to keep playing. Very rarely does someone lose more than $100, normal losses/wins are probably around $40.

In my limited experience, starting the night with a tournament is a fun way to ease people into the game without the risk of a runaway hand turning into a large night-ruining loss. Just something to consider.

(A tournament also introduces your friends to another set of chips!)

 

[Poker Zombie]

I think you are debating at a level that is above the skill levels of the OP's group.

In the OP's group, the disadvantage is simply psychological. "I can be felted, but I cannot felt my opponent. Therefore, it is unfair."

OK let me give you an example:

Imagine a game where there's a big stack who's showing themselves to be a terrible player... bad preflop discipline, calling bets and drawing out despite terrible odds, etc. Let's say that player has luckboxed their way to a stack of 500BBs.

As a good player, you're patiently sitting at the table waiting for your opportunity to win their chips. But you might only get one opportunity. So what stack size would allow you to maximize your EV in that situation? A standard 100BB buy-in? Or if you had them covered?

So in other words, what I'm saying is that if maximizing EV is the goal, AND you are the superior player, a bigger stack is the best tool to accomplish this.

If your opponent is that terrible, you will not need to have a big stack to defeat them. You can expertly chip away at their luck-box gains. Maybe not all today, but if they just Quintupled up on the session, the fish will become a regular feature and you will get it back over many sessions - and extend the life of a fledging game.

 

[grebe]

Agreed on all these points. The only thing I'd add is that fixed limit isn't suited to every poker variant. Games like Omaha and Holdem are a drag when it comes to FL betting structures and it's not difficult to understand why players of just about every playing style don't prefer them.

I am sitting here playing $1/2 6 max limit holdem right now (online). I would argue that it is a much better game than the nit fest that is NL25 or NL50 where everybody is playing 4 tables. There is plenty of play here, with strategy and bluffing. I also play in a Limit Big O game when I can make it.

So I for one, disagree. And if I had a game such as OP has described, I would doubly disagree.

 

[Moxie Mike]

I am sitting here playing $1/2 6 max limit holdem right now (online). I would argue that it is a much better game than the nit fest that is NL25 or NL50 where everybody is playing 4 tables. There is plenty of play here, with strategy and bluffing. I also play in a Limit Big O game when I can make it.

So I for one, disagree. And if I had a game such as OP has described, I would doubly disagree.

Hey man - if you enjoy the grind that is fixed limit Holdem more power to you. It's not my thing and most people I know don't prefer that betting structure but that's not to say it doesn't have its place in the pokerverse

 

[Moxie Mike]

I think you are debating at a lever that is above the skill levels of the OP's group.

In the OP's group, the disadvantage is simply psychological. "I can be felted, but I cannot felt my opponent. Therefore, it is unfair."

You're probably right - experienced players understand that 'getting felted' in a cash game literally means nothing.

 

[Legend5555]

I am sitting here playing $1/2 6 max limit holdem right now (online). I would argue that it is a much better game than the nit fest that is NL25 or NL50 where everybody is playing 4 tables. There is plenty of play here, with strategy and bluffing. I also play in a Limit Big O game when I can make it.

So I for one, disagree. And if I had a game such as OP has described, I would doubly disagree.

What site?

 

[Dugthefish]

Seriously, the length that people will go to not play limit is appalling.

Benefits of LIMIT poker:
-more of a friendly game
-much more simple
-faster
-easier on newbies
-stacks don't matter
-no "sick reads" or grand standing
-no getting stacked in one hand
-Easier to incorporate multiple games

Drawbacks of LIMIT poker:
-not on TV

Drawback: zero opportunity to win back all one's losses in a single hand. This is why I think many players are unwilling to play limit: there is no chance they can have that one "perfect hand" they've been "setting up for" all night and win a huge pot.

 

[SeanGecko]

Drawback: zero opportunity to win back all one's losses in a single hand. This is why I think many players are unwilling to play limit: there is no chance they can have that one "perfect hand" they've been "setting up for" all night and win a huge pot.

.
I mean if you play that bad, yeah....

 

[JustinInMN]

Drawback: zero opportunity to win back all one's losses in a single hand. This is why I think many players are unwilling to play limit: there is no chance they can have that one "perfect hand" they've been "setting up for" all night and win a huge pot.

The thrill of juicing a 6 way pot with top pair and nut flush draw, or top set filling up and someone spikes a gutter on the river.

There are certainly ways to win huge pots in limit. It may even be easier than in no limit where multi way hands are rare.

 

[Schmendr1ck]

I'm repeating some of what has already been said, but you get my two cents anyway:

The first is to allow buy in amounts larger than the original $25 (100 BB)--for example, X% of the max stack

I think this is a bad idea, especially for a new game, for two reasons.

First, match the stack gives another advantage to the better players. In addition to leveraging their skill to win more often, they can also increase the amount they win by buying in bigger.

Second, it can make the game uncomfortably big for some, and this can also drive away players.

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

Don't do this either. All money in play should stay in play - that way, the players who lost it have a chance to win it back before the end of the session.

As others have said, new players need to learn that only effective stacks matter. I like to explain it to them like this: If the big stack is $100 but I can only buy in for $25, I'm the one with the advantage. I'm only risking $25 to win his $100, but he's risking $100 to win my $25.

Set your stakes where most players are comfortable with 3 buy ins.

Best piece of home game advice in this thread IMO.

 

[CoachBudKilmer]

Long story short. Playing a short stack against big stacks confers no strategic disadvantage. Just a potential profitability disadvantage.

Again, I'd say that playing a short stack against multiple deep stack players can be an advantage. Heads up, you're both playing the same stack size.

 

[Dugthefish]

.
I mean if you play that bad, yeah....

They just like having that hope I think lol

 

[Taghkanic]

50% of the biggest stack is pretty standard.

Buying in for the full big stack can lead to other issues if one player is much higher rolled than others.

I prefer to just do it like casinos do—have a max and a min buyin. 30-50 BB min / 150-200 max is typical in my experience. If someone runs it way up one night, so be it.

 

[grebe]

What site?

Bovada....Ignition skin

 

[grebe]

Drawback: zero opportunity to win back all one's losses in a single hand. This is why I think many players are unwilling to play limit: there is no chance they can have that one "perfect hand" they've been "setting up for" all night and win a huge pot.

So, play shitty all night and end up a winner because they suck out once. Yep, that's a drawback.

Listen, I know I am climbing an uphill battle here. I am trying to point out (and pretty successfully, mind you) that LIMIT is a much better structure for home games....ESPECIALLY for this home game. If the players are so worried about losing money that you would consider scratching cash and going to a tournamant structure to limit losses, then your structure is the issue. Limit fixes that.

I would also like to state that I am a pretty good no limit player, and in a cash game, much of the time NL structure is the better structure for me personally to win money. (If that was my primary driver, I would be at 2+2 and not here though). HOWEVER, it is more cutthroat and if you just want an evening of cards, it can send players home pretty early.