OP
OP
I dont why but I agree for some reason the lower stakes the funner it gets lmao don't get me wrong I love higher stakes but there's something about lower stakes lmao
-
This site contains affiliate links. If you choose to make a purchase after clicking a link, Poker Chip Forum may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for your support!
Cash Game What do yall think is a good buy in for a home cash game? (5 Viewers)
- Thread starter snake01gt
- Start date
RadicusScout
Flush
Less sweaty.
Yeah, no one is losing car payments or rent. They're losing pizza money. They don't have to explain anything to their significant others. Of course, this might be $500 bucks for some, and $50 for others. It really is group dependent.
Great info guys!! We just started to integrate cash games in to our schedule. I think it will take a few more games to dial it in, be started with .25/.50 blinds and $10/$50 buy in. We decided to raise the blinds to .50/$1 and buy in at about $20/$80. Had a great time and looking forward to our next game.
Really hard to say. My home game is 90% 5c/10c because of 8 or 9 players there's always 2-4 who are either inexperienced and intimidated by higher stakes, or they don't earn enough to stomach a $50~100 loss for what's a social outing to them. $10 buy-ins keep enough people interested to keep the game going. At this point $20 buy-ins are more common than $10 though, hoping after another 6 months to a year we're playing mostly 25c/25c.
My personal preference would be probably buy-ins averaging close to $50, maybe $100 on the splashier nights. More than that and I would rather play with strangers not friends. Generally I'd say that having the stakes too low isn't as risky as too high, too high and a bad night can permanently kill some people's interest.
As others have written, really depends on your group.
I’d suggest figuring out, what amount of money you and your players are comfortable losing in a session incl. a re-buy or two, and work backwards from there.
Personally, I prefer to be able to buy in for 200bb, but 100bb can work alright. Our group does re-buys or top ups to the size of the biggest stack or 200bb, whichever is bigger. Half the big stack also works fine.
I’d suggest figuring out, what amount of money you and your players are comfortable losing in a session incl. a re-buy or two, and work backwards from there.
Personally, I prefer to be able to buy in for 200bb, but 100bb can work alright. Our group does re-buys or top ups to the size of the biggest stack or 200bb, whichever is bigger. Half the big stack also works fine.
Dugthefish
3 of a Kind
Don't track anyone's results besides your own. Unless you want the bad players to realize they're bad and improve or stop playing.
Nine_high
3 of a Kind
Hard to say without knowing your group, everyone has their own comfort level.
I like to gauge it as a night out with friends. The big loser on the night (which I'm defining as 3x buy ins give or take) shouldn't be losing more than it would cost to pick up the check at a nice (not extravagant) dinner for 4, which it's not uncommon for us to do for each other anyway. For us that's a few hundred bucks. So I set the buy in at $100 and the blinds at $0.50/$0.50.
You pick the restaurant. How much is the tab? Divide by about 3-4 and that's your buy in. Work out the blinds from there. I like the max being 100-400 bb (I do 200 bb).
I'll also add i only host once every 6-8 weeks. I would probably lose half my crew if we tried to do this weekly.
merkong
Full House
Seems like a sort of unusual way of calculating but I can see it.
It's not about, in the long long run, deciding exactly what your group or possible group is willing to lose (heaven forbid but it does happen). In the weekly primer memo that goes out to all players who have secured seats at GFC, it simply states that everyone should come prepared ("pocketed") and expect to "win or lose" no more than 2-3 buy-ins.
Now, that little disclaimer doesn't alleviate the game's manager from having to set the stakes at a place where the vast majority of players are comfortable but it does preemptively message folks that if they're grabbing a seat and coming to the game that they've sort of fallen in line with the expectation, an expectation designed to protect the game and ensure that it survives the length of the session.
Let's face it, games evolve and players that are comfortable at one point will maybe not be comfortable with the same stakes later on. Games must find the "secret sauce" and start where they can live comfortably and make incremental and cautious moves in the area of stakes and buy-ins and know that one false move can spell disaster. There's many options to get a little more action at a game long before popping the blinds, buy-in's etc...
Remember what I've always subscribed to "Players can leave my game because it's too small but I will fight to keep anyone from having to leave it because it's too big."
That's why game managers make the big bucks. Wait, what?
Interesting topic. I think there are several factors to weigh, but as others have said I think more risk of losing players to stakes being too high than too low. Plenty of threads out there on how hard it is to find/keep enough players for a regular game.
I started my monthly neighborhood game at $20 buy-in. The game is unlimited rebuys but there are usually only a few rebuys per night. Early on I was doing 100 chips per person with all chips being same value with blinds of 1/2 (chips). That essentially made every chip worth $0.20, blinds of $0.20/$0.40, and starting stacks at 50BB. People would call every hand with any cards and make comments about how calling a 10 chip bet (10% of their starting stack) was $4, a "cup of coffee". I felt like that was diluting the "real" poker play. I also didn't love that all chips were same value and it is relatively short stacked game (50BB). So I adjusted to $50 buy in and giving everybody $100 worth of chips with chip denominations usually being $0.25, $1, and $5. Blinds at $0.25/$0.50. This has a more "real" feeling with actual chip denominations and much deeper stacked (200BB). I setup a little calculator on my phone to calculate the cash out at the end of the night. The $50 buy in hasn't really slowed down the overplaying of hands as much as I would like. I think that for some people in my group it wouldn't really matter what I raise it to, the amount isn't meaningful enough to them to change the style of play. And I think if I increase the buy-in any more I would lose people. So generally happy with the $50 buy in.
Hopefully not too much of a divergence of topic, but wondering how people use casino chips in these lower stakes home cash games? Most of my casino sets have relatively available quantities of $5, $25, and $100 denominations, but often hard/impossible to find $1's and fracs. For example, with my Dunes set I have a lot of $5, $25, and $100. I found some hot stamp NCV $25 Dunes chips that I use as a $0.25. I have relabeled Boulder Station $1's as my $1's. And then use the actual Dunes $5 as my $5. But in that scenario, 1 of the 3 denominations on the table is a relabel and 1 is a tournament chip/hot stamp. I am finding it hard to find a way to use the $25 and $100 chips. For my Harrah's New Orleans I use the $25 as $0.25, the $100 as $1, and the $500 as $5. That seems to work OK, basically everybody has 100x their buy-in. I am thinking maybe going to something like $50 buy in gets you $500 in chips and playing $2/$5. With 10x buy in, conversion at end of night still relatively simple (very simple with calculator on phone) and still relatively deep stacked at 100BB. Would be able to get some of the higher denomination chips in play. Curious what others are doing to get casino chips on the table.
I started my monthly neighborhood game at $20 buy-in. The game is unlimited rebuys but there are usually only a few rebuys per night. Early on I was doing 100 chips per person with all chips being same value with blinds of 1/2 (chips). That essentially made every chip worth $0.20, blinds of $0.20/$0.40, and starting stacks at 50BB. People would call every hand with any cards and make comments about how calling a 10 chip bet (10% of their starting stack) was $4, a "cup of coffee". I felt like that was diluting the "real" poker play. I also didn't love that all chips were same value and it is relatively short stacked game (50BB). So I adjusted to $50 buy in and giving everybody $100 worth of chips with chip denominations usually being $0.25, $1, and $5. Blinds at $0.25/$0.50. This has a more "real" feeling with actual chip denominations and much deeper stacked (200BB). I setup a little calculator on my phone to calculate the cash out at the end of the night. The $50 buy in hasn't really slowed down the overplaying of hands as much as I would like. I think that for some people in my group it wouldn't really matter what I raise it to, the amount isn't meaningful enough to them to change the style of play. And I think if I increase the buy-in any more I would lose people. So generally happy with the $50 buy in.
Hopefully not too much of a divergence of topic, but wondering how people use casino chips in these lower stakes home cash games? Most of my casino sets have relatively available quantities of $5, $25, and $100 denominations, but often hard/impossible to find $1's and fracs. For example, with my Dunes set I have a lot of $5, $25, and $100. I found some hot stamp NCV $25 Dunes chips that I use as a $0.25. I have relabeled Boulder Station $1's as my $1's. And then use the actual Dunes $5 as my $5. But in that scenario, 1 of the 3 denominations on the table is a relabel and 1 is a tournament chip/hot stamp. I am finding it hard to find a way to use the $25 and $100 chips. For my Harrah's New Orleans I use the $25 as $0.25, the $100 as $1, and the $500 as $5. That seems to work OK, basically everybody has 100x their buy-in. I am thinking maybe going to something like $50 buy in gets you $500 in chips and playing $2/$5. With 10x buy in, conversion at end of night still relatively simple (very simple with calculator on phone) and still relatively deep stacked at 100BB. Would be able to get some of the higher denomination chips in play. Curious what others are doing to get casino chips on the table.
merkong
Full House
No, no... $50 buy in should get you $50 in chips. We've been down this road before in other threads. Don't overthink it (or complicate it).
To your earlier point about casino chips etc; I'm quite infamous around here for a) using $25's as fracs, $100's as $1's, mixing molds, mixing materials, and doing whatever possible (especially back in the early days of GFC) to make things work out and play to the needs and desires of my game.
I like a ranged initial buy-in ($25-40 here) and "add-ons" (it's a cash game so a) no need to be broke and b) it's not a rebuy, it's an add-on) can be anything from as small as the banker doesn't laugh at you and refuse to go to the drawer all the way up to the big stack... Giving players the latitude to play in their comfort zone will help throttle the game...
This whole $500 in chips for $whatever is mind-boggling and completely unnecessary.
If you’re having that much trouble with stakes etc then run tournaments. I brought my game back after a 5 year hiatus as a weekly tournament and when the appetite developed (as I knew it would) for a cash offering and then cash only, I made the switch.
If your players are mostly recreational, 100 BBs is a good place to start. Deeper buy ins give educated players a big advantage over the fish, and it can affect the game's sustainability.
Set expectations for players to bring 3 buy ins each so the game doesn't break up early if someone gets stacked.
Set expectations for players to bring 3 buy ins each so the game doesn't break up early if someone gets stacked.
The only time I do this is for family holiday games where everybody pitches in 5 bucks and they get $50 in chips and we play ".25/.50"
All values are divided by 10, but you don't have to worry about it unil cashout time.
DrStrange
4 of a Kind
"match the big stack" is a recipe for disaster for the unsophisticated player. Oh sure, the winning players LOVE it. It ensures the sharks will get a chance to feast on the bait fish for stacks the few nights the weakest player gets lucky. Guys who have almost no experience playing a deep stack are confronted with better players with more experience any time they get lucky. If the weak fish is smart - they will pack it up and go home as soon as they hit that lucky hand. because if they don't, the lucky will not stay that way for long.
Nothing defines the size of the game more than the size of the max buy in. There are games where huge stacks are expected and sort-of good for the game. Though I have to say every game I played in with that sort of buy-in structure had suffered from massive player loss as the bad players really don't stand a chance. Hopefully they had a good time anyway.
OP, start out smaller and shallower. The most important thing is to nurture your infant game. You can always bump things up if desired. Listen to the weakest players as they decide if your game lives or dies. The best players often will be quite loud about raising the stakes.
Good luck, have fun -=- DrStrange
Nothing defines the size of the game more than the size of the max buy in. There are games where huge stacks are expected and sort-of good for the game. Though I have to say every game I played in with that sort of buy-in structure had suffered from massive player loss as the bad players really don't stand a chance. Hopefully they had a good time anyway.
OP, start out smaller and shallower. The most important thing is to nurture your infant game. You can always bump things up if desired. Listen to the weakest players as they decide if your game lives or dies. The best players often will be quite loud about raising the stakes.
Good luck, have fun -=- DrStrange
RadicusScout
Flush
Outside of getting exact denominations, what else would you change about this situation? Given the circumstances this sounds like a good set up.
I agree. IMO, payout math should be simple and easy to calculate at the end of the night. A dollar in chips gives you back $1. Easy steezy. Since you already have a breakdown of chips that can accommodate actual dollar value, I don't see why you'd want to complicate it any further.
merkong
Full House
I agree, in theory, with almost everything you're saying... The "match the big stack" is not a mandate. Aside from a game's manager knowing or having a general idea of the players, it's not the games responsibility to overtly protect anyone or prevent nefarious or predator-like behavior. If a game legitimately has those issues the manager doesn't have the skills to be managing the game or the players are not worthy, nor capable of being managed.
Start small, as has been mentioned, keep a range for initial and add-ons so as to keep the onus on the player and yet allow them to be competitive ($25 add-on after breaking doesn't do much against stacks of $100+).
Games that are poorly run in any number of ways will disintegrate. Games that are managed well, handling all aspects with respect and due diligence, will run for maybe 594 sessions or more...
Curious why the strong position of chip value must equal buy-in value?
If it is just the math, the little Excel calculator on the phone does it quick. People don't even have to figure out how much they have in currency. They just tell me the count of chips each chip denomination they have and it calculates. In my current game, $50 buy-in gets you $100 in chips at beginning of night. At end of night I plug in the counts of chips to get chip value, then it calculates the 50%, then I round down to nearest $5 with any overage going into a progressive high hand pot (which I like as an added incentive to keep guys coming since they have "invested" into it). It takes about 30 seconds per person to get their chip count and gets a very accurate distribution. For me it is much more accurate and faster than each guy counting his chip value. And I can easily change the math if I want to scale differently (e.g. $500 in chips) to get higher denomination chips on the table.
Wondering if there is a reason beyond the math that you wouldn't scale. Again, I am just trying to think of creative ways to get more chip variety in play based on the denominations available. There is the slightly added benefit of people not equating every raise to a cup of coffee because there is a little bit of math involved.
merkong
Full House
It just makes no sense to implement. If I look down at my stack I want to know how much cash it is at a glance. NCV or WCV (weird cash value) are for tournaments. IMO, in addition to overcomplicating things and for what reason I do not know, but you're doing a slight disservice to how this thing is done.
You're free to do what you want of course, but I wouldn't even cash in at a game that is played like this and know that none of the players I've ever played with would likely cash in as well.
I think a better question is why are you doing it?
merkong
Full House
Our banker recounts all players chips with 100% accuracy and it probably takes less than even 30 seconds to recount even up to $200 in chips across three denominations.
Listen, in addition to taking part of players winnings for a high hand jackpot, which should be done session by session v. coercing players into coming back (that's what ammenities and effort are for) I can't think of any reason I'd ever consider something this half-baked. I'm sorry if I'm a little stern with this. I mean no disrespect. It makes no sense, NCV or WCV (weird cash value) are for tournament play. That's why they call it a cash game.
I do it almost entirely to get a wider range of chips on the table and to be able to manage blinds relative to buy-in. I love playing with actual casino chips but so many of them are very limited in readily available denominations. It is pretty easy to find $5, $25, and $100 Dunes chips but $1's are basically impossible in any scale. And I'd generally rather play "real" chips at fake buy than use relabeled chips (although I do both). Specifically for the Dunes I could use the $25's as quarters, relabeled $1's, and real $5's (and $100's never get used). That feels pretty bastardized telling people to ignore the decimal place on the $25 and ignore that the $1 is the only non-house mold chip. Or I can use real $5, $25, and $100 chips and scale the buy-in. I've never had anybody flinch at the scaled buy-in. Definitely not ideal, but trying to figure out the best way to use the available denominations. For all of the great casino chips out there, there is almost always a problem with the denomination breakdowns.
merkong
Full House
Good luck.
No disrespect taken. I appreciate the discussion. I don't love either answer ... scaling the buy in or using relabels/imagined values.
I’ve had a lot of fun doing this but we call it Canadian night. You buy in with USD but get Canadian units. At cash out we calculate lmao. It’s hilarious but gives everyone a 30% lift. It can make rebuys annoying but it achieves your same goal.
Also buy those treasure island $1s I had w the dunes set! Or any blue house mold $1. And then the fracs can be any hot stamp. Even defoil and restamp a frac like @jamesjkim
buzzmonkey
Flush
My .25/.25 game allows buy-ins of $5-50. Everyone always buys in for $20 so I usually do to since I host. In the even we ever play .25/.50 I'd double that range to $10-100.
merkong
Full House
You know, the vast majority of us play CPC chips, relabels, and probably a million other variations of chips aside from straight up casino chips.
I think "imagined values" is what you're doing. My DieCard set, an amazing CPC chip, is non-denominated. Greens are the frac, whites are the workhorse. 5 racks total and a mountain of red dice plaques as $5's and a handful of $25 dice plaques covers up over a $1K.
Jimulacrum
Full House
I agree with this method for deciding what the max (or fixed) buy-in will be. The important thing is that it matches up reasonably to your players' budgets and risk tolerance. Whatever that amount ends up being, you can use it to determine what blinds to use.
Suppose for the sake of example that you land on a $50 max buy-in. How to decide the blinds for this buy-in level depends on what kind of game you want, and more specifically, the skill balance among your players.
If you have equal-skilled players looking for a challenging game, probably start with $0.25/0.50 blinds at most ($50 = 100 BB), or go even smaller on the blinds if you want a super-deep-stacked (i.e., mostly skill-driven) game.
If you have players of mixed skill levels—especially if you have any concerns about certain players being able to crush the rest—set the blinds higher so that the game plays shallower, to soften the edge the skilled players have over the rest. For example, you could do blinds of $0.50/1 or even $1/2 for the $50 buy-in, which will force people to gamble more and sit around waiting for aces less. If going with a shallower structure, you may want to calculate the buy-in to allow for more rebuys.
100-200BB
Create an account or login to comment
You must be a member in order to leave a comment
Create account
Create an account and join our community. It's easy!
Log in
Already have an account? Log in here.
