Venting about a capped max buy in (3 Viewers)

[TheJestyr]

So newbs losing way more money is helping them learn.

Interesting.....

I guess I’m confused by your comment, noobs can lose just as much shooting in multiple buyins vs one larger one. Or they can move down in stakes. But also, yeah, the sad truth about poker is you lose a lot in the beginning. Lord knows I did lol

 

[Machine]

Worth noting that the games I’m referring to above are often uncapped. I just originally posted this thread to vent about caps in general because I feel like it does a disservice to players trying to learn how to play deep stack poker and post flop play, I’m still not convinced 100bb caps are good for the game, feels more like a crapshoot to me, but Im more than willing to mull it over and I really appreciate everyone who’s contributed to this thread so far!

I think you find most 'uncapped' games (1/2) cap out around 1 to 2 k.

You don't often see people buy in for 5k or 10k at a 1/2 NL / PL game.

In fact I would say you don't really need to buy in a 1/2 PLO game for 5k if the effective stack is 400. Alot of people could play (skill and funds) for large stakes but I'm just not that into it. I find I enjoy the game more than playing to win money.

You mention crapshoot, and you're a PLO player? The majority of us are NLH players, they are shaking their head at us.

What you've never bought in for 400, max straddle and then per-flop raise to 100 for an orbit? Look I'm not a fan of NLH, but being a PLO player and talking down about a cap as a crapshoot is poppycock in my opinion.

 

[Josh Kifer]

I guess I’m confused by your comment, noobs can lose just as much shooting in multiple buyins vs one larger one. Or they can move down in stakes. But also, yeah, the sad truth about poker is you lose a lot in the beginning. Lord knows I did lol

I speak in riddles and code.

 

[TheJestyr]

I think you find most 'uncapped' games (1/2) cap out around 1 to 2 k.

You don't often see people buy in for 5k or 10k at a 1/2 NL / PL game.

In fact I would say you don't really need to buy in a 1/2 PLO game for 5k if the effective stack is 400. Alot of people could play (skill and funds) for large stakes but I'm just not that into it. I find I enjoy the game more than playing to win money.

You mention crapshoot, and you're a PLO player? The majority of us are NLH players, they are shaking their head at us.

What you've never bought in for 400, max straddle and then per-flop raise to 100 for an orbit? Look I'm not a fan of NLH, but being a PLO player and talking down about a cap as a crapshoot is poppycock in my opinion.

Oh I love taking shots and buying in short, but I also love the option to buy in deep as well. Crapshoots have a place in PLO, lord knows that, but I also want the option to buy in to cover the big stack as well.

 

[Machine]

@TheJestyr, don't worry you're our kind of degen, come out to some of the meetups, you'll love the mix games, and the big boi tables. Krish, Goldie, MatB and a few others would love you to push them around =)

Seriously you'll have a blast!

 

[JustinInMN]

Worth noting that the games I’m referring to above are often uncapped. I just originally posted this thread to vent about caps in general because I feel like it does a disservice to players trying to learn how to play deep stack poker and post flop play, I’m still not convinced 100bb caps are good for the game, feels more like a crapshoot to me, but Im more than willing to mull it over and I really appreciate everyone who’s contributed to this thread so far!

I definitely think there has been a trend toward larger caps. I think finding 150BB-200BB caps in live games is more common. Certainly in hosted games here. I'm going to start experimenting with 200 BB caps in my home game this year, we'll see what I think.

 

[Nanook]

So I’ve read and re-read these points and have a couple questions. (And PLEASE know that I’m not coming at you with any attitude, I’m genuinely trying to figure out answers…I swear I’m not being defensive!)

Ok, cool. I'll assume you are genuinely trying to understand

.....Many rec players consider check-raising rude. Slow playing or trapping big hands, overbetting the river, all things that make the game less enjoyable for the casual player. (I was raised that checking wasn’t allowed in our friends and family games.) Yet I argue that these are vital to the different levels of poker artistry. Should these be banned from the game?

some things like check raising, trapping etc are all part of the game. Other things like stealing, colluding with other players or the dealer and mis-representing your hand or stack size should never be part of the game or your strategy.

Or should players learn from their mistakes, learn from different plays used against them, and then improve their own game? I ask because I was on the receiving end of the cash-under-the-stack maneuver and had to learn that moving forward I need to ask for an accurate count when making decisions. I didn’t get mad at the player or the rule, it was just part of the game and I had to learn that.

Again, please don’t think that I’m arguing for it to be allowed today......... It’s all part of the learning process of all the nuances of the game.

Yes, players need to learn from their mistakes, but there are plenty of situations where that argument just doesn't fly. Consider that back in the 70's & even into the 80's virtually every dealer in Vegas was a card mechanic. How would you like to find out after losing 10's of thousands in the game that several players and the dealer were colluding to take YOUR money. Now how do you feel about the whole thing if I say, "Well, he should have known better." Or "He has to learn somehow" etc? Are you going yo play in that game anymore?

....Also, I think playing deep stack poker is a skill that is difficult to cultivate if you can only buy in for 100-200bb. I love jamming in short buy ins once in a while, but I know that I take the game way more seriously when I have a stack to consider.

This is all good....

......would it matter at all if I said that the games I play in have 5 and 6 figure swings regularly? Does this change how you’d view what’s best for the game or the players in the game?

Generally when people are losing meaningful money then playing too big does matter. What is "meaningful" is different for doesn't folks. If everyone in your game has a net worth of 10M or more then swings of 10k or even 100k may be sustainable. For most average guys that make 150k or less/yr these sorts of swings will force people to quit.

I really appreciate everyone’s input and love thinking about the game we love in a much deeper way!! I’m grateful for you PCF!!

is all good

..... I really appreciate everyone who’s contributed to this thread so far!

Good good

 

[KHarp1]

My comments may have been out of line, it did look like you were strongly defending attitudes that many take great offense to, especially given the apparent approach that "it's part of the game" attitude. Some of the things you bring up are just part of navigating the game, learning your angle of approach to your play. Some of the things you mention like check raising, etc, are parts of the game that need to be learned and are tools to be used.

 

[TheJestyr]

Ok, cool. I'll assume you are genuinely trying to understand

some things like check raising, trapping etc are all part of the game. Other things like stealing, colluding with other players or the dealer and mis-representing your hand or stack size should never be part of the game or your strategy.


Yes, players need to learn from their mistakes, but there are plenty of situations where that argument just doesn't fly. Consider that back in the 70's & even into the 80's virtually every dealer in Vegas was a card mechanic. How would you like to find out after losing 10's of thousands in the game that several players and the dealer were colluding to take YOUR money. Now how do you feel about the whole thing if I say, "Well, he should have known better." Or "He has to learn somehow" etc? Are you going yo play in that game anymore?

This is all good....

Generally when people are losing meaningful money then playing too big does matter. What is "meaningful" is different for doesn't folks. If everyone in your game has a net worth of 10M or more then swings of 10k or even 100k may be sustainable. For most average guys that make 150k or less/yr these sorts of swings will force people to quit.

is all good

Good good

First, thank you for understand that I’m not trying to intentionally be a jerk or have attitude (sometimes I come across as a jerk when I really don’t mean to, but that’s a whole different issue hahah) So much can be lost via written word and I promise I’m trying to come at this with an open mind and spirit of figuring out what’s right/best for the game.

Couldn’t agree more that stealing, collusion, cheating should have no place in poker. Misrepresenting your hand (I’m strictly speaking about during the hand, not miscalling your hand at conclusion of all betting) is part of the game. Misrepresenting stack size (again, not verbally, but arranging your stack in a way that you deem advantageous) was also considered part of the game. NOT saying I support it today, but there’s a lot of things that have happened in the past that were part of the fabric of our history that we can’t change. Not having big chips or cash in plain site was just accepted as part of the game, same as check raising (at least in the several places I played.) The game is better off for this rule being enforced today.

Because it was so often considered “acceptable” and “part of the game,” I see it very different than out and out collusion or cheating. (NOT saying that it should have been accepted, but it doesn’t change the fact that the places I was playing didn’t disallow it.) Cheating was always considered wrong, arranging stack in an advantageous way was similar to check raising, and something I needed to be aware of as a player.

If we want to have a game that has a 20k min buy in, and someone loses 100k multiple games in a row, sure it can put them on the rail for a while. But that doesn’t mean we have to put in rules to keep that person from losing whatever amount they chose to lose. (It’s worth noting that if the player was drinking or distraught or something, we’ve pulled them aside and had a heart to heart with them about going home instead of going deeper in the game.) I agree that not all games are sustainable. We’ve slowed our game to once a month or every other month so the game can stay healthy. But I have seen poker and gambling in general ruin lives and that doesn’t matter what stakes being played…

Sorry for rambling so much, I’ve just been trying to process everything brought up today and kinda thinking out loud thanks for listening and bouncing ideas off me!

 

[TheJestyr]

My comments may have been out of line, it did look like you were strongly defending attitudes that many take great offense to, especially given the apparent approach that "it's part of the game" attitude. Some of the things you bring up are just part of navigating the game, learning your angle of approach to your play. Some of the things you mention like check raising, etc, are parts of the game that need to be learned and are tools to be used.

Thanks for this comment. I really truly appreciate it!! Yes, I had that attitude that arranging chip stacks in an advantageous way was part of the game. For a few years it was, and it was something that players needed to navigate. I’m glad things changed, the game is better off for it, but it doesn’t change the fact that was part of poker history for a while (at least in the several places I was playing 20 years ago)

Thanks again!!

Also, my profile pic is meant to be shameless marketing…my band “The Sublets” released a music video today called “Fallback” and it’s an anthem about not letting people walk all over you anymore…so the pic is the logo for the song, sorry if it came across as wanting people to get hurt or something! My apologies

 

[Nine_high]

I don't have any issue with a game being uncapped. I've never played in one where it mattered, so I can't really speak from experience, but it is what it is. It's probably superior poker experience or what have you. I know my limits and may or may not participate but I for sure see the arguments in favor. I will say, I don't like "match the stack" flavor caps because I believe a cap should be fixed or open, not some moving target that changes every hand. Semi-fixed is ok for a home game, like 2x after a certain time or something like that.

Overseas I played in and eventually ran a .25/.50 "uncapped" game where everyone bought in for $20. Once in a while someone would turn heads when they threw out two $20s or a $50. I put a $100 in and people l thought I was crazy pants.

When I got home I started my own .25/.50 game uncapped. I would have bought you in $5,000 if you wanted. But I quickly realized this was a bad idea because at the time I had no security and store bought chips. Plus, knowing some of my friends, and then others whose income bracket I knew but gamble I wasn't sure about, I was a little worried people might go apeshit one night and the game would flame out. It's funny, the opposite happened. Just like overseas, everyone always bought in for 1x-2x the minimum. When I eventually decided to cap it at $100 the average buy in roughly doubled. And now I'm starting to worry it's too much for some of my guys. Go figure.

 

[KHarp1]

Apologies not necessary, but, thank you. Just part of navigating the on-line conversation and cyber 1st impressions.

 

[DrStrange]

I guess I am lost trying to figure out what the original post was about. We started off missing one of the key bits of data - the size of the game. OP seems to be talking about the biggest of big games. Bigger than most shown-on-TV games with +/-$100,000 swings normal for each player at the table. Nothing like some piddly $1/$2 where the whole table combined can't cover a single blind straddle at the OP's table.

I have to start out saying I have no clue about that environment. How does a whale with billions of dollars in net worth care about losing a few hundred grand? How rampant is cheating / angle shooting? Just getting an invitation seems like an issue for a EV plus player unless you are some sort of poker celebrity. How often does someone get robbed, killed, extorted? Short stacking might be dangerous. Are you coming to the game with your personal private security? How connected / corrupt is the host? What value are the players getting for their fees?

Just a host of considerations way beyond the sorts of things I have any expertise with. I'd say go with the flow, take your share of the loot and aim not to bring trouble into your personal life. Maybe shearing a insanely rich mark could be a life-time mistake unless you know what you are doing.

Shrug, what do I know? -=- DrStrange

 

[livia256]

So let me preface this by saying I am biased because of my history with poker.

I grew up playing dealer’s choice games with family and close friends. Could win or lose $100 in a night, but most of the time averaging around $40-$50 up or down.

First time I played poker in a casino was $1-$4 spread limit 7-stud.

Eventually I moved to limit hold-em, then NLHE, and currently PLO is my game of choice, but still really love all forms of poker.

I say all this because in spread limit and limit games, there wasn’t a capped buy in because there didn’t need to be one…you couldn’t go all in (unless you had overs or whatever but that was a later development to the game) so it didn’t matter if you had $100 or $1,000,000 on the table, the most you could bet was fixed.

When NL starting being played, originally there was no capped buy in (at least not in the dozen or so card rooms I played in across the country)…that was also at a time when cash would play, and you could bury a few thousand dollars under your stacks so when you went all-in, you could ambush your opponent and take his/her whole stack…but that’s a different story.

No capped buy ins really defined my style of play. I purposely chose games where I could buy in for 500-1000bb and push the table around. It made people uncomfortable when I’d constantly push the action and hit them with big bets.

But I think it’s strange that so many games have caps, especially lower 100bb caps. By the time you raise and reraise preflop, you have over 10% of your stack in the pot, and it feels like you’re shooting the rest of your stack in on the flop and turn instead of having enough room to play strategically and still have a large river bet.

Now I fully understand that I can practice pot control or small ball or whatever in order to keep a decent sized barrel on the river, but there’s definitely times where big bets are a must when playing poker properly, and I feel like capped buy ins really hurt that.

Thanks for letting me vent.

Bottom line is I’m bad at the pokers and trying to maximize my losses by putting too much in play haha

I feel that 100BB deep is enough for skilled play. Heads up with a preflop raise you could bet around 2/3 on the flop/turn and that would allow for a reasonable overbet shove on the river. Alternately you could bet pot on all three streets to get it all in, but there are very few logical boards that would allow for that.

In our friends game we cap the buy in at 200BB. My reasoning that if the buy in is uncapped and 500-1000BB deep, blinds become meaningless and you might as well just play higher stakes.

 

[Nanook]

First, thank you for understand that I’m not trying to intentionally be a jerk or have attitude (sometimes I come across as a jerk when I really don’t mean to, but that’s a whole different issue hahah) So much can be lost via written word and I promise I’m trying to come at this with an open mind and spirit of figuring out what’s right/best for the game.

You are welcome

Couldn’t agree more that stealing, collusion, cheating should have no place in poker. Misrepresenting your hand (I’m strictly speaking about during the hand, not miscalling your hand at conclusion of all betting)

This "miscalling" a hand at conclusion intentionally to try and get folds is exactly what Ibwas referring to. That's a big no, no. I know technically you can get away with doing it once or twice, but it's the kind of thing one might get beaten up in the parking lot later type of thing...

....If we want to have a game that has a 20k min buy in, and someone loses 100k multiple games in a row, sure it can put them on the rail for a while. But that doesn’t mean we have to put in rules to keep that person from losing whatever amount they chose to lose.........We’ve slowed our game to once a month or every other month so the game can stay healthy.......

Of course you can do as you please, but there are only so many people that can lose say 20k/ month and keep happily coming back forever. Once you lose a player like that, you will have a VERY difficult time replacing them.

You ever hear of the saying "You can shear a sheep many times, but you can only skin it once."
This applies to poker players as it does to sheep. Think about it.....

 

[upNdown]

Misrepresenting stack size (again, not verbally, but arranging your stack in a way that you deem advantageous) was also considered part of the game. NOT saying I support it today, but there’s a lot of things that have happened in the past that were part of the fabric of our history that we can’t change.

Still waiting for anybody else to remember this.
When you first mentioned it, I thought sure, back in the old days, everybody was a cheater. But then it occurred to me, they didn’t play no limit much in the old days right? When did they start spreading no limit in the casinos, in the mid 90s?

 

[TheJestyr]

So why I felt the need to vent is because I lost a little bit of money in online PLO. Three max buy ins, low limit stuff. Overall nothing big, but I was frustrated that I could only buy in for 100bb. I felt like that severely limited any edge I might gain from skill (at least till I had a stack in front of me)…and then I started thinking about caps in general and pondered their purpose (as we’ve discussed)…and lastly I decided I didn’t like them and wrote a thread about it haha

 

[TheJestyr]

You are welcome


This "miscalling" a hand at conclusion intentionally to try and get folds is exactly what Ibwas referring to. That's a big no, no. I know technically you can get away with doing it once or twice, but it's the kind of thing one might get beaten up in the parking lot later type of thing...


Of course you can do as you please, but there are only so many people that can lose say 20k/ month and keep happily coming back forever. Once you lose a player like that, you will have a VERY difficult time replacing them.

You ever hear of the saying "You can shear a sheep many times, but you can only skin it once."
This applies to poker players as it does to sheep. Think about it.....

Yeah, definitely agree with that saying…it’s the reason there aren’t 7 figure swings in our games haha

 

[TheJestyr]

Still waiting for anybody else to remember this.
When you first mentioned it, I thought sure, back in the old days, everybody was a cheater. But then it occurred to me, they didn’t play no limit much in the old days right? When did they start spreading no limit in the casinos, in the mid 90s?

First time I played no limit in a casino was 2004. Prior to that almost all games that ran in most casinos were limit or spread limit. Sure there were NL games that existed, but everywhere I played almost exclusively ran limit/spread limit. And many casinos didn’t even have poker rooms because they weren’t deemed profitable enough.

 

[TheJestyr]

Turning stone, various Indian casinos, Detroit casinos, even most casinos in Vegas…crazy how things change…

 

[livia256]

So why I felt the need to vent is because I lost a little bit of money in online PLO. Three max buy ins, low limit stuff. Overall nothing big, but I was frustrated that I could only buy in for 100bb. I felt like that severely limited any edge I might gain from skill (at least till I had a stack in front of me)…and then I started thinking about caps in general and pondered their purpose (as we’ve discussed)…and lastly I decided I didn’t like them and wrote a thread about it haha

You could think about it this another way, the edge would have to come from having better knowledge of SPR and picking the right times to go all in.

 

[JustinInMN]

You could think about it this another way, the edge would have to come from having better knowledge of SPR and picking the right times to go all in.

The best players in the world find the edge regardless of the rules. This is because the best players in the world recognize this skill is part of having broad game selection. No one should aspire to be a no-cap nlhe specialist grinding it out in one game with this ruleset when a whale is set to dump of 6-figures at high stakes horse limit table across the room.

Sometimes the whales sit in the no-cap nlhe games no doubt. But sometimes the whales sit in other games, the true professional is ready for both.

 

[Samuel]

When I host, I typically run a smaller stake game with lower max buy ins/rebuys as compared to two of our other regular hosts (for the same group of players) - because for me, it's more about the fun/camaraderie than the $$.

If you don't like someone else's structure, then don't play there. If/when YOU host, you can set whatever ground/house rules you like...

 

[TheJestyr]

The best players in the world find the edge regardless of the rules. This is because the best players in the world recognize this skill is part of having broad game selection. No one should aspire to be a no-cap nlhe specialist grinding it out in one game with this ruleset when a whale is set to dump of 6-figures at high stakes horse limit table across the room.

Sometimes the whales sit in the no-cap nlhe games no doubt. But sometimes the whales sit in other games, the true professional is ready for both.

Couldn’t agree more!!

Also worth noting I never claim to be a pro…I’m a huge action junky who spews chips lol

 

[TheJestyr]

When I host, I typically run a smaller stake game with lower max buy ins/rebuys as compared to two of our other regular hosts (for the same group of players) - because for me, it's more about the fun/camaraderie than the $$.

If you don't like someone else's structure, then don't play there. If/when YOU host, you can set whatever ground/house rules you like...

Absolutely agree!!

 

[Jimulacrum]

Couldn’t agree more!!

Also worth noting I never claim to be a pro…I’m a huge action junky who spews chips lol

I've played in a few games where players like you have come and gone—not the stakes you're playing, but the same philosophy of nosebleed stacks and big, aggressive action. There are two that stand out. The first was a weekly 0.50/1 NLHE game with match-the-big-stack rebuys, which had been running without problems for like a decade.

Most players wouldn't bring more than 200 and usually wouldn't get it all on the table. However, one player who joined the game abused it so badly that the host had to change the rules to protect everyone else. He'd show up with a bank envelope with thousands inside and go full maniac. He regularly plays 2/5 and higher; the 100–200 that other people brought was nothing to him. He was a good player, not necessarily the best player in the group, but everyone felt like they were playing way out of their league with him, simply because he'd play with so much more money.

When it reached the point where it threatened to break up the game, the host dramatically changed it to a progressive 20/40/60 buy-in: 40 when someone has a stack of 100, then 60 at 200. Years later, after I joined the game, he'd change it again to 0.25/0.50 with a flat 20 buy-in, mainly because of me. It was a smart move. The game would not have lasted otherwise.

The other game was a bimonthly-ish 0.25/0.50 PL circus game with match-half-the-big-stack buy-ins, hosted by @bergs. A great game, no doubt, but anyone who played in it alongside me can testify to what happened to the player pool over time: it gradually hardened to a core of high-skill and big-action players. Basically everyone who didn't fit that profile left after a game or two.

That's fine if that's what you're looking for, I guess. There's a place in the poker landscape for games and structures that heavily favor high-skill players and enable action junkies to get their fix. I don't mind splashing around in that pond from time to time myself. But it's terrible for the overall poker scene for this to be the norm.

Truly, even NL/PL cash games in general are a problem. They make the game too competitive. They don't foster the kind of fun, gambley environment that attracts casual players to socialize and screw around.

 

[bergs]

I've played in a few games where players like you

The other game was a bimonthly-ish 0.25/0.50 PL circus game with match-half-the-big-stack buy-ins, hosted by @bergs. A great game, no doubt, but anyone who played in it alongside me can testify to what happened to the player pool over time: it gradually hardened to a core of high-skill and big-action players and high-skill players. Basically everyone who didn't fit that profile left after a game or two.

(Beams at being referred to as “high skill”)

Narrator: later, atop the parking garage, he realized that the reference was to the players and not the host, and that he was, at his best, merely big-action.

(Camera scrolls to @CraigT78 on the ground looking up at the now saddened Bergs as he stands atop the top floor of the garage, arms outstretched. “DONT DO IT BERGS”, he screams. “I’M FAKE ACTION - YOU’RE BIG ACTION, DONT DO IT”.

Craig then takes a bite of a giant cannoli that he pulls out of his pocket and murmurs to no one in particular, “wow this is actually pretty great”, as he turns and walks away muttering “or just jump, I don’t care, but I’m not cleaning it up”.)

 

[TheJestyr]

I've played in a few games where players like you have come and gone—not the stakes you're playing, but the same philosophy of nosebleed stacks and big, aggressive action. There are two that stand out. The first was a weekly 0.50/1 NLHE game with match-the-big-stack rebuys, which had been running without problems for like a decade.

Most players wouldn't bring more than 200 and usually wouldn't get it all on the table. However, one player who joined the game abused it so badly that the host had to change the rules to protect everyone else. He'd show up with a bank envelope with thousands inside and go full maniac. He regularly plays 2/5 and higher; the 100–200 that other people brought was nothing to him. He was a good player, not necessarily the best player in the group, but everyone felt like they were playing way out of their league with him, simply because he'd play with so much more money.

When it reached the point where it threatened to break up the game, the host dramatically changed it to a progressive 20/40/60 buy-in: 40 when someone has a stack of 100, then 60 at 200. Years later, after I joined the game, he'd change it again to 0.25/0.50 with a flat 20 buy-in, mainly because of me. It was a smart move. The game would not have lasted otherwise.

The other game was a bimonthly-ish 0.25/0.50 PL circus game with match-half-the-big-stack buy-ins, hosted by @bergs. A great game, no doubt, but anyone who played in it alongside me can testify to what happened to the player pool over time: it gradually hardened to a core of high-skill and big-action players and high-skill players. Basically everyone who didn't fit that profile left after a game or two.

That's fine if that's what you're looking for, I guess. There's a place in the poker landscape for games and structures that heavily favor high-skill players and enable action junkies to get their fix. I don't mind splashing around in that pond from time to time myself. But it's terrible for the overall poker scene for this to be the norm.

Truly, even NL/PL cash games in general are a problem. They make the game too competitive. They don't foster the kind of fun, gambley environment that attracts casual players to socialize and screw around.

Thanks for your comment!

I totally agree that limit poker prolongs the life of games. I also totally agree that NL or PL has decimated many poker scenes. As has casinos popping up everywhere (many players I know went broke playing blackjack or craps while waiting for a seat at a poker table)

It doesn’t change the fact that NL and PLO has become the norm, and over time I had to find what I was most comfortable doing. Much like game selection (PLO vs NLHE vs short deck vs whatever) I tried to play in a way that I felt I was losing less.

I’m overall a losing player. But I’ve found that I feel more confident playing with a large stack and navigating later streets.

And in the games I play in today, we all buy in for the same amount (roughly) and try to build a stack. But at like the 10 or 20 hour mark, a capped buy in makes it really hard to continue in the game when others have such larger stacks. (Not just for me, but many of the players who play in these games too. In fact I’d say the game would be less healthy if someone who was stuck six figures that they could only buy in for 100 or 200bb)

So I guess my initial reaction is that I don’t see splashy players playing big as bad for games providing that they aren’t the only player playing that way. Also we only play once every 6 weeks or so, and don’t really have a fear of the game not sustaining.

But I’ll definitely consider your points! I really do appreciate you taking the time and energy to write it out and it’s something I’ll definitely contemplate! it’s not falling on deaf ears, I promise! Just need some time to process

Not sure it’s worth noting, but I put together poker nights with close friends and family where we play .05/.10 and no one loses more than $40 or $50 bucks. We do a capped buy in and just enjoy each others’ company. I’m not a bully in these situations because it’s not about being competitive.

But when I play in the bigger games (sometimes in Pitt, sometimes Maryland, sometimes in Vegas, sometimes in Cleveland) we all play very competitive and enjoy trying to win big. We trust that each person who sits down has their stop loss limits and we play hard.

Again, I’m a losing player. I’m fishy anction and more games have been built around me than I care to admit. As a rec player who loses, I don’t enjoy being told “yeah, you’re down xxx,xxx but you can only buy in for x,xxx”

Definitely not saying I’m right here, I definitely wish several things were different about poker, but I tried to play in a way to minimize my losses long term.

As always, thank you for your input! Much appreciated!!

 

[Schmendr1ck]

The other game was a bimonthly-ish 0.25/0.50 PL circus game with match-half-the-big-stack buy-ins, hosted by @bergs. A great game, no doubt, but anyone who played in it alongside me can testify to what happened to the player pool over time: it gradually hardened to a core of high-skill and big-action players and high-skill players. Basically everyone who didn't fit that profile left after a game or two

I played in that game once many years ago when I was still a relatively new cash game player. I'm pretty sure that even though I walked away a winner, I crapped my pants so badly that I ruined the chair.

The one thing I clearly remember is nit-rolling @bergs with bottom set on a QJT flop. He shoved with top two, and I think I tanked for a good two minutes before calling his $100-ish bet.

 

[bergs]

I played in that game once many years ago when I was still a relatively new cash game player. I'm pretty sure that even though I walked away a winner, I crapped my pants so badly that I ruined the chair.

The one thing I clearly remember is nit-rolling @bergs with bottom set on a QJT flop. He shoved with top two, and I think I tanked for a good two minutes before calling his $100-ish bet.

View attachment 1078118

Top two is so high on my range on that flip that I would’ve called me with A8o.