Cash Game Raising blinds during the night.... (2 Viewers)

[longflop]

I couldn't really find anything on this, so I want to ask, do you all raise the blinds during the night for cash games? I know this is what a tournament is, but let me explain why I am asking this question.

I'm getting good attendance each month for the tourney, but I would like to get better attendance for the post tourney circus games. Its always the same 3-5 guys playing, and I know the other guys are intimidated. We play those games $.25/$.50, so every once in a while, the guys will sit down, buy in for $20, lose it and leave within 15 minutes. I have a lot of guys that like to limit their losses, thats why they like the tourneys. What I was thinking is this:

Whenever the second table opens up, the cash game starts. For the first hour, we will play $.05/$.10, second hour $.10/$.25 and 3rd hour to the end of the night $.25/$.50. Max buy in is 100BB and any player can top off at any time to the max. I figure that this could give the guys a chance to play the silly games cheaply at the start, and maybe they figure its fun and want to stick around, but at the same time, the guys that always stay might get a little bored playing for nickels and dimes for hours.

Am I missing something? Is this a bad idea to increase cash game players?

 

[Chris Manzoni]

I didn’t believe it until I tried it, but someone gave me this advice and he was absolutely right. He said “If you want to quadruple your cash game players overnight, make it NLHE only. It’s the mix games, not the stakes that scare casual players away, because probably most of them would think nothing of sitting down to a 1/2 game in a casino.”.

But if you can’t stand the idea of NLHE only then I’m not sure what a good solution might be. I fear that lowering stakes down to nickels and dimes runs the risk of leaving players disinterested to the point of distraction.

 

[DrStrange]

Raising the blinds in the middle of the night is a terrible idea. Both bad for the game in the long run and bad for the game the moment it happens. This can be mitigated or exacerbated by changing the buy-in structure at the same time.

In the moment - raising the blinds gives people a reason to rack up and go home. This is entirely sensible for the weaker player or someone on a tight budget. It sounds like there is already a shortage of cash game players. Giving a reason to go home early is only going to make this worse.

In the long run - The cash game is struggling for players now, it wouldn't take many drop outs from killing the game outright. Why bother sitting in a game that is structured to break up in an hour or so? This isn't the worst of the problems.

The knife to the heart is the higher blinds will lead to larger swings, swings that tend to favor the better players. Making the game bigger means the weaker players lose more and the better players win more. The better players tend to know this and if they are short sighted can lead them to advocate for the sort of changes that favor them in the moment.

The buy-in sizes matter a lot. If the buy-in size (in dollars, not bb) stays the same AND if the buy-in is low relative to the blinds, then the rising blinds are not quite as destructive. Shorter stacks tend to benefit weaker players. But the structure in the original post has the buy-ins rising from $10 to $25 to $50 as the night progresses. This is going to effectively slaughter the weaker players. Such players should rack up and go home as soon as the increase hits their pain point. But they often will not - rather the weaker players will stay in the game until busted, then go home. Maybe this will feel like a victory for the winners, but not so much for the losers.

Bottom line. This is a horrible idea. Don't do it. -=- DrStrange

 

[detroitdad]

Raising the blinds in the middle of the night is a terrible idea. Both bad for the game in the long run and bad for the game the moment it happens. This can be mitigated or exacerbated by changing the buy-in structure at the same time.

In the moment - raising the blinds gives people a reason to rack up and go home. This is entirely sensible for the weaker player or someone on a tight budget. It sounds like there is already a shortage of cash game players. Giving a reason to go home early is only going to make this worse.

In the long run - The cash game is struggling for players now, it wouldn't take many drop outs from killing the game outright. Why bother sitting in a game that is structured to break up in an hour or so? This isn't the worst of the problems.

The knife to the heart is the higher blinds will lead to larger swings, swings that tend to favor the better players. Making the game bigger means the weaker players lose more and the better players win more. The better players tend to know this and if they are short sighted can lead them to advocate for the sort of changes that favor them in the moment.

The buy-in sizes matter a lot. If the buy-in size (in dollars, not bb) stays the same AND if the buy-in is low relative to the blinds, then the rising blinds are not quite as destructive. Shorter stacks tend to benefit weaker players. But the structure in the original post has the buy-ins rising from $10 to $25 to $50 as the night progresses. This is going to effectively slaughter the weaker players. Such players should rack up and go home as soon as the increase hits their pain point. But they often will not - rather the weaker players will stay in the game until busted, then go home. Maybe this will feel like a victory for the winners, but not so much for the losers.

Bottom line. This is a horrible idea. Don't do it. -=- DrStrange

I was going to say the same thing but not as eloquently. Well said sir.

 

[longflop]

Raising the blinds in the middle of the night is a terrible idea. Both bad for the game in the long run and bad for the game the moment it happens. This can be mitigated or exacerbated by changing the buy-in structure at the same time.

In the moment - raising the blinds gives people a reason to rack up and go home. This is entirely sensible for the weaker player or someone on a tight budget. It sounds like there is already a shortage of cash game players. Giving a reason to go home early is only going to make this worse.

In the long run - The cash game is struggling for players now, it wouldn't take many drop outs from killing the game outright. Why bother sitting in a game that is structured to break up in an hour or so? This isn't the worst of the problems.

The knife to the heart is the higher blinds will lead to larger swings, swings that tend to favor the better players. Making the game bigger means the weaker players lose more and the better players win more. The better players tend to know this and if they are short sighted can lead them to advocate for the sort of changes that favor them in the moment.

The buy-in sizes matter a lot. If the buy-in size (in dollars, not bb) stays the same AND if the buy-in is low relative to the blinds, then the rising blinds are not quite as destructive. Shorter stacks tend to benefit weaker players. But the structure in the original post has the buy-ins rising from $10 to $25 to $50 as the night progresses. This is going to effectively slaughter the weaker players. Such players should rack up and go home as soon as the increase hits their pain point. But they often will not - rather the weaker players will stay in the game until busted, then go home. Maybe this will feel like a victory for the winners, but not so much for the losers.

Bottom line. This is a horrible idea. Don't do it. -=- DrStrange

What about changing it to .10/.25 with a max buy in of $25 and run that for all night? The only problem is that the better players are going to keep betting like it's a .50/1 game. Maybe go PL, maybe that will slow it down.

 

[DoubleEagle]

While we play for higher stakes, the only way our blinds would ever change is by 100% agreement of all players. Players come expecting blinds to be at a certain level. Not right to change them without everyone agreeing. Even then, this can lead to problems. That said, we have never changed our blinds during the game and probably never will.

My suggestion, don't do it.

 

[longflop]

But if you can’t stand the idea of NLHE only then I’m not sure what a good solution might be.

Its not that I can't stand the idea of NLHE only, its just that the circus games are fun. I think I'm going to get some nickels out, lower the blinds to .10/.25 with a $25 max buy in, and run that all night. Hopefully it makes a difference. If not, and we can't get more guys interested in hanging out, then we'll just go back to the .25/.50 game and keep going like we have. If you put a gun to my head, I think most guys in my group will leave after the tourney despite the change, they're mostly in it for the night out away from their kids.

 

[AWenger]

What about straddles - do you allow them currently? Either under the gun only, or the option of under the gun or on the button. (with a button straddle, action starts with the SB).

A straddle effectively raises the blinds for that hand, assuming players who want a bigger game are willing to straddle. I've even played at some small cash games where the whole table agrees to a round of mandatory straddles, effectively raising the blinds for that round.

I'm also curious to hear thoughts from others about the straddle as it relates to this discussion of raising/changing the blinds for a cash game.

 

[Darson]

Every group is different so I'm not going to tell you what to do. Instead, I recommend you ask your players. Why aren't they staying? Is it that they are unfamiliar with the circus games? Or are they just not willing to risk any more money? Or are they just done for the night and don't want to play later? The answers will help determine your actions.

 

[bsdunbar1]

Agree with every group being different.
In our weekly game we have NLHE that starts as soon as people get knocked out of the tourney. The game starts at .50/$1 until 11 pm and then from 11pm to 1am it is $1/$2. Never really thought of it being an issue and none of my guys think twice about it.

 

[Chris Manzoni]

I truly think it has everything to do with the game people are used to playing and very little to do with stakes when you're talking about a 50-75c difference. But that's just me.

 

[JustinInMN]

Yeah, I am +1 for opposing changing the stakes in the middle of the night, but it's not the worst so long as players understand that will happen.

My guess is the participation suffers because either 1) the risk involved is too high for luck based games, 2) NLHE is percieved as the only form of "real poker" in modern times.

If the issue is number one, then the plan to lower the blinds may work. If it's the latter then there's not much you can do if you lack the players.