Introducing No Limit
 

This may sound odd but at our home game we never play no limit. It's always $3 max raise ("spread limit") hold 'em, omaha, omaha hi-low, stud ("follow the queen") - or some variation of guts ("bama guts" "bloody 7s" - don't ask me about "booray").

A while back we switched all chip denominations to 50 cents each to simplify and to help out the one color blind guy. I really do like it, it makes things easy. Cash plays.

We also play unlimited stakes (not table) so when you run out of chips, you reach to your pocket or you can say you're all-in in a poker game if you're really done for the night. In guts you get stuck with debt...

We do call Pot Limit from time to time but it gets nutty. The lack of clarity on how much you can raise ("whatever is in your wallet") just messes it up even further.

I'd like to play PL or NL but can't seem to get agreement on how to do it. We tried "strict table stakes" last week which ended up having about $1k on the table when everyone emptied their wallets under their stacks. Not what I intended. Also the blinds were stuck at .50/$1 due to the high chip denominations. I shouldn't complain as I did fine but really don't want to lose $500 a week on a bad run, my wife will kill me.

I think I know some of the solutions to this but I'd like to hear suggestions anyway, maybe so I can forward the thread on to some of these guys so they'll listen to me. (capped buyins, start using quarter chips). We play fairly unconventionally and are just fine with it so any suggestion is fair game.

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

A quick suggestion, try a capped buyin say Max $100.

Playing unlimited stakes and not table stakes seems to be the problem. In that case, eveything that is in the wallet is really in play so Im sure you have more then 1k in play there.

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

If you're playing NL or PL, you absolutely must stick with table stakes.

Cap your buyin at $100 (or the smallest stack on the table, whichever is bigger).

Also you may consider two 50c blinds instead of 50c/$1.

You should strongly consider investing in more chips and eliminating cash on the table. You cannot play NL with only 50c chips and cash. Buy chips with different edge markings for the color blind guy. You should get at least quarters, dollars, and fives. Allow $20s on the table if you run out of chips. No 50c chips.

$1k on the table is a below-average night at my game. We play 25c/50c and 50c/$1 NL.

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

Maybe we should go back to .50/$1 limit, those were the good ole days, you could play all night with a $20 buyin.

Thanks for the 'differing chips' suggestion pfapfap, never occurred to me. We could even use plastic chips for large denominations if necessary. He can differentiate some colors but I think blue/green look identical to him.

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
We could even use plastic chips for large denominations if necessary. He can differentiate some colors but I think blue/green look identical to him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Get some samples and run them by him- sure he's appreciate it.

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

Hell, blue/green are hard on ANY poker table. Chips need to be starkly different.

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

"You cannot play NL with only 50c chips and cash. "

Why not? As long as you're willing to put up with the "how much do you have?" questions every 3 minutes...

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

I think we'd be fine if we capped at $20 or $30 with .50 chips. I can't figure out why the guys won't tolerate this, I guess they think it's chump change. For some it is but for others $20 a week is too much. But this isn't a 'player can't afford to play' thread...

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

How many players do you have? $30 is not nearly enough for a .50 chip game, especially not if blinds are .5/1. If most want to play at higher stakes, why not? It sounds like you're the person uncomfortable with the stakes of the game.

If there are enough players, why not make two games at different buyin and blind levels? If there aren't enough players for this, find some so that there are. That's what we do here, and it works very well. People who do well at the smaller game can take a shot at the bigger game, and people not doing well or off their game at the big table can step down.

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
But this isn't a 'player can't afford to play' thread...

[/ QUOTE ]

oh, yes it is.... and if you don't get this settled soon (assuming you're running the game) your game risks breaking up.

I repeat what others have said- with no table stakes rule, it doesn't matter WHAT your blinds are- this is a big game.

My suggestion- "overs" buttons. Set the max buy-in, and the resulting blinds, based on what will work for all of the players in the game currently. Add a table stakes rule and decide what the max rebuy is: 1 1/2x the capped buy-in? 1/2 the biggest stack? Higher?.

Now, for the big playahs, they can each get an overs button. How this works: Once the hand is down to ONLY the players who have overs buttons, there is no cap AND no table stakes, if that is what they want.... but ONLY to complete the rest of this hand.

If anyone remains in the hand until the showdown, who isn't playing the overs, then there ARE no overs and table stakes applies. If they're that desperate to drive up the stakes, they can bribe out the non-overs players on each hand.

Until you get enough players to have two tables (thus, two different limits), that might work?

You'll probably have to make some rules, to avoid having someone take an overs button until they're ahead, then returning it to protect their profit...

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

One of our problems is retaining players, we invite a new guy over and he loses $20-$40 (maybe he comes back once and loses again) and never returns. This has happened many times (one poor bastard left $100 of debt... ugly). The variety of oddball games combined with high stakes I think runs them off. So we have about 6-8 regulars which means only one game.

I'll suggest overs buttons tonight, but my guess is everyone will take one (lol). I really do fear someone raising me like $8000 though - definitely can't afford that, and one or two of them will have a wallet full.

Maybe it is time to up the stakes. Don't tell my wife.

Thanks for all the advice.

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

you can't play NL or PLO without table stakes rule. If you do then players are going to be able to essentially cheat.

I put $1000 in my pocket. If you make a big bet at me on the river that I want to call with only the chips left on the table I say I am all in. But if I like my hand enough to put $1000 more in I reach into my pocket and call your bet.

And no knowing how much other players have is a ridiculous way to play NL or PL.

You don't need a cap, but all the money should be on the table (or at least every player should have to declare how much is in their pockets before they begin).

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

With .50/$1 blinds, I would recommend that you start with a $100 max-buy-in table stakes game. If it's a friendly game where everybody brings more than $100, I'd recommend making a $100 innitial buy-in mandatory (no more, no less).

Once the game starts, players can chose to rebuy back up to $100 anytime they want before a new deal, but they can't add on to their stack if it's over $100 except by winning it. And they can choose not to rebuy, too, if that's what they would prefer.

If $100 max buy in's aren't "deep" enough, then make it $200 max buy-in. But I wouldn't go any deeper than that. Effective stacks of 200x the big blinds are pretty deep already.

Finally, you need to make sure you play table stakes only, and get used to figuring out how to set up side pots when more than one player is all in with varying stack sizes. Also, you should play chips only as long as you have enough chips. Don't let people slip cash on the table or under their stacks. It is unethical to "hide" or intentionally misrepresent the amount of money you have in play at a no limit table stakes game.

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

I'm not really sure what the main problem is. You have a regular group of enough people for a full and action-packed table, all of whom enjoy the stakes and games at play.

For a limit or small spread-limit game, I have no problem with playing whatever is in your pocket, but you can't mix in that kind of game with a PL or NL game, as those need to be table stakes. You can't switch back and forth.

If everybody is okay with higher stakes, it sounds like you're one of the people who is uncomfortable losing $40. Why do you want to force a group of people to change their game completely merely to suit your more limited bankroll? Perhaps you should either stick to the mixed spread limit game or not play NL or find a different game.

It's the oddball games that drive off people, not the stakes. Newcomers probably feel uncomfortable with a group of people who know each other playing games they don't know in a highly aggressive manner. But it's only a problem if people think it's a problem. If you have enough people for a regular game and everyone is having fun, I don't think that's a problem.

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

I've never been to a game that wasn't table stakes. I thought that went out in the 1970s.

You really have to set a capped buy-in and ONLY PLAY TABLE STAKES.

If you want to have a very different type of chip, consider getting the European poker chip plaques. Perhaps you could use these to represent $10 or $25. They are square and should be easily recognizable to your color-blind friend. You would want to get plaques without dollar amounts on them, of course [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

Most people seem to disagree with me, but I've always thought that limit is a better choice than NL for friendly home games. The bad players don't lose as consistently, more people get to play more hands, tensions don't run as high, and the players who don't want to put as much money in play don't feel like they will be bullied by the big stacks (I know it doesn't work that way, but a lot of people feel that way regardless).

It sounds like you should just leave the game the way that it is. People clearly want to be able to have a lot of money on the table (or access to it) and splash around with it, but you don't want to have to face large all-in bets - so just keep as a limit or spread-limit game.

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

Is it bad that I'm a huge degenerate and thought "wtf, table stakes is lame, uncapped buyins rule, OP and his fellow players have it made" when I saw this post?

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

Why would you want to change this??!?!
This game sounds like way more fun then NL.

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

We played plenty of PL last night and it worked out fine. A little cash made it on the table with all the .50 chips but having a couple $20 bills around was not a big deal. Going south was discussed and agreed upon (do not do it).

The three of us that got there on time were discussing the future of our game after an hour of sitting around waiting when the rest of the crew arrived and restored my faith in our home poker game. We had a blast. 4 dollar spread limit follow the queen 7-card stud was the only game which paid me, it's amazing when your first 5 cards flush (all natural) and then the wild card comes, then changes, but the hand still holds up. A-high flushes, boats and quads usually win that game.

Anyway I think we're ok. It's uncapped but it's got to be on the table. We played some NL as well, it worked fine.

FWIW I'm fine with the stakes. and I'm not finding another game, these are my best friends from college and we've been playing together for more than five years now. The problem as I see it is the stakes are getting too high for newbies, but, I've realized it's not a place for newbies, everyone is really quite good. We had one new guy who was thankfully not new to poker, he called the NL game after buying in for $40, he had fun and will surely return. PL Omaha Hi-Lo was called a few times and was really fun, much more fun than $3 max raise Hi-Lo. New guy played Omaha with us but got smart and sat out during booray rounds which I'm hoping will encourage people not to call it, I hate it.

Thanks for all the comments, table stakes is key, even if it gets a little weird with mixed games getting thrown in. I think a few of you have it dead right, we're lucky to be able to play all these different games and have tons of fun in the process. Maybe we don't need any new players, this would be fine if the Army didn't keep shipping them off to Kuwait. So long as they come home the game should stay intact.

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

Unlimited stakes is fine for limit poker, but NL poker is simply not NL poker unless you play table stakes. It's that important. I would go so far as to say if you're not playing table stakes in NL, then you're simply not playing NL.

Pot Limit is a complete waste of time for a home game. Any nuances between that and NL will surely be lost on anyone, and it's just way too hard to keep track of how much can be bet and raised. No fun, don't bother.

NL adds new dimensions as long as you come up with clear rules for how you can rebuy. But remember what I said, it's imperative that you know how much someone has in front of him for any particular hand, and that's the only amount they can play with.

In our home game, we have a fixed buy in. The interesting thing is that we cannot buy in again until we bust. You can never just top off. This adds some interesting tournament-type situations, but without knocking people out or raising blinds.

You might not like this, in which case you can play however you like. You can have cash play, but it must be on the table when the hand starts.

To a lesser extent, money shouldn't be taken off the table either, but personally I find this to be pretty unimportant as it doesn't affect the strategy of any particular hand.

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hell, blue/green are hard on ANY poker table. Chips need to be starkly different.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I was hosting this big tournament (pretty BIG) and I made the 3 biggest consecutive denominations all very slight variations of orange. Do you think this was a bad idea?

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
This may sound odd but at our home game we never play no limit. It's always $3 max raise ("spread limit") hold 'em, omaha, omaha hi-low, stud ("follow the queen") - or some variation of guts ("bama guts" "bloody 7s" - don't ask me about "booray").

[/ QUOTE ]

This game already sounds like a blast, why do you want to introduce NL. If you want bigger pots you can just make the spread bigger. (I think 'wider' is actually the correct adjective.

Whatever you do don't make it PL. It is a major drag getting people to understand and then calculate what pot limit actually means. And if you're the guy that can do the arithmetic on the fly then you'll ALWAYS be the one doing and can never rest and relax.

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

If you are running a home game, might I suggest The Rules Of Poker by Lou Krieger and Sheree Bykofsky. It has the basic rules for many games including what is a pot bet and what is a pot raise in a pot limit game.

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hell, blue/green are hard on ANY poker table. Chips need to be starkly different.

[/ QUOTE ]

So I was hosting this big tournament (pretty BIG) and I made the 3 biggest consecutive denominations all very slight variations of orange. Do you think this was a bad idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG HE IS MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE 2007 WSOP ZOMG.

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is it bad that I'm a huge degenerate and thought "wtf, table stakes is lame, uncapped buyins rule, OP and his fellow players have it made" when I saw this post?

[/ QUOTE ]

Table stakes are not lame, although it sounds like the OP is playing a modified table stakes game where everything in your pocket is considered to be on the table.

Consider, if you're not playing table stakes, say you get involved in a big pot and make the absolute nuts on the turn. Its a huge pot already but you're down to a hundred bucks in your pocket. So you borrow four hundred and make it five hundred to go and get a call. After the river you still have the mortal nuts but your opponent bets into you for 8 grand. If you can't borrow eight grand, then you have to fold your mortal nuts. That's supposed to be fun?

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So I was hosting this big tournament (pretty BIG) and I made the 3 biggest consecutive denominations all very slight variations of orange. Do you think this was a bad idea?

[/ QUOTE ]

OMG HE IS MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE 2007 WSOP ZOMG.

[/ QUOTE ]

And it was actually kinda funny too, until you replied...

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

[ QUOTE ]

Table stakes are not lame, although it sounds like the OP is playing a modified table stakes game where everything in your pocket is considered to be on the table.

Consider, if you're not playing table stakes, say you get involved in a big pot and make the absolute nuts on the turn. Its a huge pot already but you're down to a hundred bucks in your pocket. So you borrow four hundred and make it five hundred to go and get a call. After the river you still have the mortal nuts but your opponent bets into you for 8 grand. If you can't borrow eight grand, then you have to fold your mortal nuts. That's supposed to be fun?

[/ QUOTE ]

This was the exact situation I was trying to avoid. Fortunately the group finally understood was I was getting at, even if it means emptying your wallet on the table, at least it's in plain sight. As it turned out, most of us bought in for $40 worth of chips and couple of the guys slid a few twenties under their chips (making it clear to all). It worked out well. It seems that table stakes only apply to the PL/NL games though - in guts and booray if you go in on a $100 pot you do have to pay if you lose; no all-in. All-in wouldn't really work in those pot-matching games anyway. We allow all-in for any of the poker games. With limit I would expect you could go to the pocket but it hasn't come up yet - usually someone just turns to the guy next to him and says "I raise - gimme 6 bucks" as he pulls another $20 out. We often have the guy who works at a real bank put a $50 bill and say "ok, I'm 6 in on my $50. Ok now I'm $12 in, I reraise" - it really works fine for limit. We all know each other pretty well so it is generally smooth. So it's still a goofy game but everyone seems to get it and it should continue this way, it is fun as hell.

PL was not hard to play but there is probably little point with Hold 'Em - it was suggested for Omaha H/L to keep players from going all in preflop with just an A2 (AA22/AA2K).

Our game is really awesome. It may warrant another post but I wonder if anyone has ever played Booray (Bourre) before: http://www.pagat.com/rams/boure.html eh, it's not poker. More like spades for money. But you do draw cards like in 5-card draw (if you have the guts).

Re: Introducing No Limit
 

What you could do is set a cap per hand for PL or NL - that is a player can lose a maximum of $100 or $200 or whatever on one hand.