NL max buyin games? Casino/Floor people please read

[AKQJ10]

Oh, it wouldn't be a bad thing at all. It'd be awesome.

Sklansky and Miller give the detailed explanation in NLHE:TAP. In short, these people could fish around preflop with all kinds of speculative hands trying to take money off each other, and you'd be laying no implied odds with your strong starting hand. You might be even money against the field to quadruple up!

But the fish think this would be a bad thing, which is why more rooms don't go this route.

[bav]

[ QUOTE ]
But the fish think this would be a bad thing, which is why more rooms don't go this route.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's that the fish (and non-fish) think this would be a boring and high-variance way to play. I agree it should typically be profitable for the ultra-short stack. But playing all-in or nothing pre-flop poker isn't much fun for most folks. The tourists come to Vegas to play poker, not to watch other people play poker.

In my case, let me face the peril. I wanna try to parlay my $300 buy-in into $5000 at that giant-stack NL1/3 table. The downside is limited, the upside is huge and my odds ain't too shabby.

[AKQJ10]

Boring it definitely is.

My highly speculative opinion is that high per-hand variance (i.e., higher probability you get sucked out on) is offset by the lower dollar variance. You might get stacked for 40 BBL with AA more often, but you won't lose 200 BBL by flopping an underset.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Rick, Randy, and all the others your input would be greatly appreciated.


[/ QUOTE ]

As usual I'll make you sorry you asked [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

In LA County the card clubs are starting to experiment a little so policies vary. Also, I'll address moving from a broken game to either an existing game or the broken game board, taking a voluntary table change, and moving from a must move (if you have must moves for games this small) to the main game(s). You really need sensible policies for all of these eventuallites. Keep in mind your policies should tend to gravitate toward what is good for the game, fair (and also appear fair to the casual player), easy on administrate, and not easily taken advantage of by the sharp player.

Note in the LA area in the smaller games fixed buy games dominate, but at least one club has a spread buy (i.e., The Bike with their 5-5 blind 300-500 spread buy). Yet the Bike also has a 3-5 blind $200 fixed buy game, the former game serves more as a transition game to the 5-10 $500 minimum buy game. Meanwhile, The Hustler used to have spread buys (e.g., 2-5 blind with a 100-300 spread) but has switched to fixed buys (this game now has a $300 fixed). Whether a game has a spread or fixed buy, the policy can fit either, i.e., if one requires that you start with the normal buy it is either the fixed or inside the spread.

For broken games I believe the best policy is to allow the player to take all his chips or chip up/down to the fixed buy or the spread. This satisfies most customers and seems fair; after all you want to give maximum flexiblity to players who just had their game dissapear. If players draw for seats and a couple don't get in, the amount of their stack should be noted on the board or in a floor's notebook.

For voluntary table changes most clubs in LA require that you start with the original buy-in. But Hawaiian Gardens, the club that started the fixed buy craze about six years ago (pre WPT poker boom), just went to a policy where you must take all your chips (if you have more than the fixed buy, if short stacked you must bring your chips up). (Note that the Commerce used to have this policy but switched.) Some may think this gives the advantage to the rat-holer, as discussed in the Party Poker Rathole Thread. But there are differences between the Party situation and B&M. At Party, the spread is 20 to 100 Big Blinds, where at Hawaiian Gardens the fixed buy is 33, 60, and 50 times the BB for the $100, $300, and $500/$1000 fixed buy games respectively. In the smaller game, playing a short stack has the huge disadvantage of paying a disproportionate collection, and the bigger games have a reasonable fixed buy where you still have some play beyond the flop. In addition, I believe B&M recreational players in a new game would look at table changes with big covering stacks as somewhat intimidating and unfair. In any event I played HG yesterday and developed a big stack in a bad game. I was looking to take advantage of the policy and change but the other two games were only slightly better. Had there been a game with some weak playing deep stacks, I'd change in a heartbeat. As it turned out, in my game I felt I was among the weaker playing deep stacks, so I left the casino to go home and play online [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

The new HG policy is worth a thread of its own, as was the Party fiasco. I do believe the realities of B&M play (where you have much worse players on average) give an unfair advantage to the sophisticated table changer if he can bring his deep stack in a fixed or spread buy game. For example, he spots a game where a couple bad players have gotten lucky and have deep stacks, he can get into that game with his deep stack and be a huge favorite to make a big score. At the same time I understand the opposite is true online on Party, where you have the ability to multi-table short stacks and get right back in after doubling up. It is clear how this must be annoying to the deep stack players and threatens to ruin the game. I also see Barry Greensteins's logic of not re-buying until he goes to the felt on the TV show High Stakes Poker, but he is playing against sophisticated deep stack players who are gambling. By playing solid cards he can turn 30K into 60K as a huge favorite. That's not chump change, even for Barry.

Regarding must moves, I believe the players should be forced to bring all their chips. This is because most must moves usually involve one game protecting one or two games (if you have more games you need to consider ditching the must move), so when must-moving you are essentially following players you just played with at the must move table into a main game. You should keep the chips in play as this would seem fair to most.

All these points are arguable of course, and feedback is welcome.

Regards,

Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
If a table breaks, the player MUST bring his accumulated chips to the next table he goes to (of the sale limit). However, if he goes to a different limit, he cannot buy in for more to the max (as he is considered a "new" player, as that point. A player from a broken table is not considered a new player.

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe you need to allow more flexibility for a broken game player (i.e., allow him to chip down if he wants), after all his game just broke and he can chose to leave the casino.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Man, if you could rathole chips everytime you asked for a table change, that game would be exploitable to the max.

[/ QUOTE ]

This may be true in the bigger Party games online as discussed in this thread, but B&M is different (at least in LA).

In LA B&M only the smaller NL games usually have fixed buys, and the collection/tip/jackpot drop is very high proportionally compared to online. Switching tables with small stacks would not only be a pain in the butt, but a big chunk of your win goes down the hole (even compared to Party!) In addition, you would have to face your opponents eye to eye if you chose to do this, and they simply wouldn't give you much action or respect. I would also think the online short stack players are also multi-tabling their small edges and are somewhat on auto-pilot, even in the big games.

In LA B&M your giant edge in the fixed buy games comes from having a huge stack in a game where a few weak players also have big stacks (or the whole table is weak). If you can change with your deep stack to a good game, this amplifies these opportunities and will irritate the bad player who got lucky and is enjoying being "king of the table" for an evening.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there should never be any max buy in(the Wynn does this for all games) and we wouldn't have this problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

Although the sample size was small (one play), the Wynn was the only small NL game where I was in a game where the pot was chopped (i.e., no action, the blinds took their money back) on six straight hands.

This has never happened in any fixed buy game I've played in. At the lower blind levels these games typically generate far more action by reducing intimidation among other factors.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Man, if you could rathole chips everytime you asked for a table change, that game would be exploitable to the max.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what you are trying to say. As others said if you request a table change you are treated as a new player and therefor allowed to buyin for the max at most. Is this different where you play? I was only taking about players moved from a broken game.

Regards,
RegBarclay

[/ QUOTE ]

In most rooms a table changing player is not considered "new" and are required to bring the same amount to the new table as they had on their old table. Some (read the better ones) will actually carry the players racked chips for them to the new table.

A douche bag (DB) can exploit this by.....

DB is a weak player, or at the least not the best player at the table. DB wins a couple of big pots and doubles or tripples their max buy-in. They see that their newly won stack is very much in danger, so they ask for and get a table change and only bring the max buy-in (or even minimum buy-in) to the new table. They have effectively ratholed two full buy-ins. They can then repeat this move, ratholing winnings on each move. It is bad for the game, assuming any of the players see what is happening.

[/ QUOTE ]

It might be bad for the game that night, but its good for the game in the long run if you allow weak players to do a few things to protect themselves.

In other words, policies that allow the weak player to escape the sharks (by chipping down on table changes) are good for the game in the long run because they protect the weak player (or the type of weak player that realizes he is weak) and keep him in action. If he can't chip down he can always leave the casino. In any event, plenty of weak players won't bother, meanwhile if you are in the game with the weak player playing a big stack (while yours is only medium), a top player in an adjoining game with a big stack can't table change and get the guys money in one hand before you have a chance to nibble away at it.

As mentioned elsewhere, this topic is probably worth a thread of its own.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So you put a max on to make the fish think they're on even footing -- call it "limit lite".

[/ QUOTE ]

aka No Limit with training wheels

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Which is why in LA you have perhaps two hundred games with training wheels feeding about eight to ten unrestricted buy-in games. Seven years ago you had one NL/PL unrestricted buy game in LA.

The TV poker boom helps, but fixed buy games has made it a lot easier for the newbie to get into NL, and many graduate to the unrestricted games.

~ Rick

[AKQJ10]

Excellent point.

But of course, the intimidation is like free money to those who don't suffer from it. I trust the button didn't pass through you during these six hands, or else you must have had some real stinkers of hands.