Player really can\'t afford to play
 

This is going to be a long post...

I play in a semi-regular $0.25/0.50 NLHE cash game with a group of very bad players. Typically, players will buy-in for $10-20 (very low, but I have to be accommodating) but it is uncapped. If a player gets stacked, he will usually re-buy for another $10-20.

The game is very loose and $5 preflop raises called by 3 players aren't uncommon. There is only one player in the game I need to worry about (call him GoodP), but usually we avoid each other.

Two of the players are married and are not doing well financially. The wife is terrible at poker, but she doesn't get stacked that often. The husband is a super-lag (call him LAGP), but not in a good way. Every time we play, there are two scenarios for him...

(1) He will re-buy multiple times and never win.

(2) He will re-buy multiple times, get lucky and build a huge stack, then donk it all off on top pair or some idiotic draw.

At the end of the night, it usually comes down to GoodP, LAGP and myself. LAGP will not stop playing until the game gets heads-up. It is a race between GoodP and myself to see who will stack LAGP first. LAGP will almost always end up losing ~$75-$150, which he really cannot afford at this time. The sick part is that LAGP wants to play a cash game format whenever we get together.

Although we have a nice liquor selection and sometimes home-cooked food, every time LAGP leaves I feel a little gross inside. I love to play poker and especially love to win, but I don't want to be taking a player's money consistently if I know they cannot afford it. If LAGP lost less or won occasionally, I would feel better, but this is never the case.

Not inviting LAGP to the game is not an option because he knows the other players well.


I discussed this with GoodP (who feels similarly) and we had the following options:

(1) Only play tournaments with low starting chip stacks (we used to play ~30BB tourneys which tend to go pretty fast). We have to have low initial stacks because the other players are not used to tourneys that last more than 1 hour [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
Pros: Tourneys limit LAGP's losses to the $10 buy-in and LAGP's style may actually help him.
Cons: With 8 players, it may take a while to finish a tourney from their perspective. I would like to be in the action too if I get knocked out early. Starting side action while the tourney continues is not an option with this group of players.

(2) When it gets down to 3 players, I could say I'm getting sleepy and want to stop playing.
Pros: If LAGP has money left, he will get to go home a winner (or at least not a loser).
Cons: The night might end early. I have to lie [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

(3) Introduce limit holdem.
Pros: This will definitely limit his losses for the night.
Cons: I tried to explain LHE to other players but they were reluctant because 'it seems too complicated' [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img] (I tried showing them Seven-card Stud... they looked at me like I was trying to explain quantum mechanics.)

(4) Lowering the stakes.
Pros: It will reduce LAGP's losses.
Cons: They want to play at those stakes.


Do any of you have other ideas? Has this happened to any of you before?

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

You shouldn't re-tool your game to accommodate losing players who don't have money. I understand how you feel, though. I have a friend who was a regular donator, and after a while it seemed vulture-like to invite him over, especially after he lost his job. Thankfully he recognized that he couldn't afford to play and is staying away until he has regular employment again.

Why not talk with LAGP about this? Maybe help him learn to play better?

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

Talk with him about it. See what he has to say for himself first...

Also, your stakes are very weird. You play with $0.25/0.50 blinds but everybody buys in for $10-$20. In my opinion, it means that people aren't really "ready/prepared" to play 50NL. Play 20NL or 10NL for that matter, and let those few who want to buy in for more buy in for more.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

I would try to play limit at least as an experiment. Stud = quantum physics, I can see that. Limit Holdem is easy for NL Holdem players to figure out, c'mon.

Anyway, let the player play. If he's your friend and you have reason to believe money losses are causing trouble in his marriage, then you might have a talk with him and see where the talk goes. (By "reason to believe" I mean have direct knowledge of some argument they've had or specific gripe his wife has.)

Otherwise, play on. It's his life. Just provide a fun time.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

#2) Just make a rule that the game ends if there's less than 4 people. Before that he's just losing money at poker, but when it's down to the two good players and him he's just getting hammered. Sounds like the other good player will back this up. Just say when it gets down to 3 players that "it's not really poker anymore", or something.

I don't think you can talk to a friend about how he handles his money unless you are really good friends. This way he saves face and you don't feel like you're taking advantage of a friend.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

It sounds like you should lower the stakes.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

He's a grown man, you don't have to protect him from himself. It's not your problem that he's a donk and losing his money.

Don't tap the glass, and rake in the dough.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

This is why I like the anonymity of the internet. I would suggest talking it over with him, but people get real defensive when it comes to money matters. Could you cap the number of times someone could buy back in?

BTW, I think stud is harder than Q.M.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

[ QUOTE ]
He's a grown man, you don't have to protect him from himself. It's not your problem that he's a donk and losing his money.

Don't tap the glass, and rake in the dough.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats an appropriate mindset for casino play, but not for a home game among friends.

Right before you quit playing you should dump off some chips to this guy to help him out.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

For all of those who are answering "Don't say anything"...

- Substitute porn, fishing, traveling or any other hobby, interest or addiction that you don't have an interest in or a vested gain in the person's participation

Now, answer the question again, as if it's a friend of yours.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

I think scott's answer is a good way to prevent him from getting destroyed when he's left with good players. Let him at least end on the good side of luck. Also, yeah, dumping some chips to him from time to time isn't a bad idea either. These are microstakes.

If he enjoys playing, then help him out. Turn this into a poker study group. At showdowns, talk about how you played your hand and why. When you react to his play, tell him your reads and why they're your reads. Throw out some poker proverbs when appropriate (eg, when folding TPTK against a big raise, say "don't go broke with one pair"), etc. These are your buddies and the stakes are tiny. This isn't tapping the glass, it's helping out friends so that you can all enjoy this activity together.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

It's your home game, you can play it any way you want.

If you really want to help him, how about you and the other good player talk about strategy during the game. This way:

1. You'll let him (and the others) know that there is strategy.

2. You won't have to worry about getting into an awkward moment.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

[ QUOTE ]
I tried to explain LHE to other players but they were reluctant because 'it seems too complicated' [img]/images/graemlins/mad.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a huge LOL capped by a well timed angry face.

Are you sure he "can't afford" to play? I'm not saying you're wrong but without knowledge of his bank account or net worth it's kind of a guess. It could be that can afford to play but gives off the whiff of not being able to, like maybe he's cheap or something. Most of us know at least one person who has more money than they know what to do with but is ridiculously stingy and come off like they're broke.

If you're right and he's in over his head then that's his problem, although your concern for him and trying to limit his losses rather than take advantage of him is nice.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

Thanks for your comments everyone. I'll address everyone in one reply.

(1) Talking to LAGP about his situation.
I am not good enough friends with LAGP to do this and I think if anyone talked to him about this matter it would be terribly awkward.

However, it may be possible to have someone in the game talk to LAGP's wife, who has considerable influence over him [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Other players in the game are much better friends with LAGP's wife.


(2) pfapfap:
"Maybe help him learn to play better?"
GoodP and I have tried to help him in the past at the table, but he is very stubborn in his poker beliefs. It seems he gets a lot of advice from WSOP coverage. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

A typical situation: 0.25/0.50 blinds. LAGP (~$120 stack, large for this game) raises preflop to $3 with QT and GoodP calls.
GoodP check/calls $3 on the flop with a straight draw.
On the turn, GoodP checks, LAGP bets $6, GoodP raises to $20, LAGP shoves (drastically overbetting the pot) and flips over top pair and GoodP shows his straight.

We ask LAGP why he bet so much. 'I had to push because I wanted him to pay for his draws.' We suggest that maybe just calling would have been better (he would never consider folding) but he shows no interest in listening.

LAGP is aware that good poker strategy exists. I keep a collection of poker books on a bookshelf in my living room and he has looked through them. Skimming through 'Theory of Poker' LAGP jokingly said, "Ohhh... it says you should occasionally 'semi-bluff'... I've just been bluffing the entire time." GoodP and I laughed.


(3) mr.spam:
"Also, your stakes are very weird. You play with $0.25/0.50 blinds but everybody buys in for $10-$20. In my opinion, it means that people aren't really "ready/prepared" to play 50NL. Play 20NL or 10NL for that matter, and let those few who want to buy in for more buy in for more."

If the fishies want to buy-in for 40BB, I let the fishies buy-in for 40BB. I adjust to the short-stack strategy until one of them doubles up.

Note in the OP that I never said it was capped at 40BB. If any of them buy-in for more, I usually match their stack.

It is actually LAGP that pushed for the 0.25/0.50 stakes. Everyone else likes the stakes too.


(4) scott1:
"Before that he's just losing money at poker, but when it's down to the two good players and him he's just getting hammered. Sounds like the other good player will back this up. Just say when it gets down to 3 players that "it's not really poker anymore", or something."

I may go with this idea. He will still be a losing player, but maybe not as bad if we quit at 3 players.

My only concern is that if either GoodP or myself is stuck for the night, we may want to recoup our losses from LAGP.


(5) tuq:
I am 100% sure he should not be playing if he is going to lose this much money. Their financial situation is not a secret. He was a home appraiser and got laid off during the housing market collapse. His wife makes a bit above minimum wage. They don't have any savings.


(6) Playing limit:
I will have to think of some way to make the betting easy for them to understand (I don't know how it can be easier). They like to bet whatever they want.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

Don't teach him directly. People don't want to be talked down to in front of other people. Just talk about your play with GoodP.

"Yeah, I only called your bet because my top pair was a weak hand, and there was a lot out there that beat me already."

Or whatever. Do it as a general discussion, talking about your own play and asking questions of GoodP. Let him learn through observation and discussion, not through lecture.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Don't teach him directly. People don't want to be talked down to in front of other people. Just talk about your play with GoodP.

"Yeah, I only called your bet because my top pair was a weak hand, and there was a lot out there that beat me already."

Or whatever. Do it as a general discussion, talking about your own play and asking questions of GoodP. Let him learn through observation and discussion, not through lecture.

[/ QUOTE ]

I appreciate the advice, but I think that a change in game structure will have a much better chance of reducing LAGP's losses than this idea.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Talk with him about it. See what he has to say for himself first...

Also, your stakes are very weird. You play with $0.25/0.50 blinds but everybody buys in for $10-$20. In my opinion, it means that people aren't really "ready/prepared" to play 50NL. Play 20NL or 10NL for that matter, and let those few who want to buy in for more buy in for more.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

[ QUOTE ]
I would try to play limit at least as an experiment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Limit is a bad idea for a LAGtard. He will get bored and pwned when he can't push people off of hands or feel cool and bluff big.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

My advice:

Treat the guy like a freakin' adult. Come on. Do you want someone else baby-sitting you? Lying to you?

If you aren't good enough friends with the guy to talk with him straight-forwardly then just let it go. Take his $.

You are not his dad.

I'm not saying to take advantage of him. I'm saying to treat him like and adult and let him make his own decisions about how he spends his $, etc.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

You are a good man i think : ).

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

[ QUOTE ]

My only concern is that if either GoodP or myself is stuck for the night, we may want to recoup our losses from LAGP.



[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't sound like you feel that bad for him, you only feel bad taking his money if you were up, if you are just recouping your losses then it's ok? i think you need to decide whether you want to help this guy or not, this may include not having him as your "guaranteed profit" at the end of the night.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

Well, while your moral standing is admirable,and understandable, you have to just leave things as they are; the player from whom you are taking the most money is a good player's bread and butter,and come along not often enough. He knows what he's doing, whether he's good or not. If you tell him the truth, you will insult him; if you kick him out of your game to spare his wallet, you will insult him; if you lower the game requirements, you all lose money; if you wish, try your best to teach lagp as you take his money, but, by all means, take his money while you can...

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

[ QUOTE ]

If you aren't good enough friends with the guy to talk with him straight-forwardly then just let it go. Take his $.
...
I'm not saying to take advantage of him. ...

[/ QUOTE ]

You say that I should take his $$, but not take advantage of him. In this situation, I don't know if this is possible.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My only concern is that if either GoodP or myself is stuck for the night, we may want to recoup our losses from LAGP.



[/ QUOTE ]

doesn't sound like you feel that bad for him, you only feel bad taking his money if you were up, if you are just recouping your losses then it's ok? i think you need to decide whether you want to help this guy or not, this may include not having him as your "guaranteed profit" at the end of the night.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't mind him losing money, but not at the current rate. It may sound odd and slightly contradictory, but it is how I feel. Guilt is a funny thing. GoodP seems to feel the same way.

I play poker for fun and to make a little extra cash on the side. Knowing that LAGP is getting slammed and can't really afford it takes the 'fun' element out of the game.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I would try to play limit at least as an experiment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Limit is a bad idea for a LAGtard. He will get bored and pwned when he can't push people off of hands or feel cool and bluff big.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that limit may seem boring to him and others in the game (I love short-handed limit fwiw). Ideally, I would like to have a mixed-game format but there is no way that is going to happen with this group. They like the 'aaaaaaallll-iiinnnnnn'

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

Hey,
I just came across this post and found it really interesting. This suggestion may be way out in left field, but just an idea: Why dont you suggest that you switch to, or every other game can be a $20-30 tournament? That way strategy and no limit play can still be apart of your game, but there is a cap on the amount lost and won. You can make the blinds rather long (1/2 hrs) and have a great game that lasts a while, and when people get knocked out, esp. LagP, they can stick around and pick up more tips by watching those who are still in. Good luck!

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

[ QUOTE ]
Hey,
I just came across this post and found it really interesting. This suggestion may be way out in left field, but just an idea: Why dont you suggest that you switch to, or every other game can be a $20-30 tournament? That way strategy and no limit play can still be apart of your game, but there is a cap on the amount lost and won. You can make the blinds rather long (1/2 hrs) and have a great game that lasts a while, and when people get knocked out, esp. LagP, they can stick around and pick up more tips by watching those who are still in. Good luck!

[/ QUOTE ]

Every other game would be a tournament? Do you mean every other time we meet?

We used to play tournaments until I suggested we try cash games. ( [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] ) LAGP didn't improve his game at all during these tourneys. However, LAGP did do better in tourneys because he couldn't get badly hurt by being very aggressive. When he builds up a big stack, he can bully the table pretty well (although, he usually overbullies).

I think they all like being in continuous action and not having to wait on the sidelines until the tournament is over.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

[ QUOTE ]

(4) scott1:
I may go with this idea. He will still be a losing player, but maybe not as bad if we quit at 3 players.

My only concern is that if either GoodP or myself is stuck for the night, we may want to recoup our losses from LAGP.



[/ QUOTE ]

You can't look for ways to reduce this guys losses and at the same time keep it as an option to take all of his money if you need it!

Also maybe you should set a fairly low max buyin limit? Might slow him down a bit if he realises how often he is rebuying.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

(4) scott1:
I may go with this idea. He will still be a losing player, but maybe not as bad if we quit at 3 players.

My only concern is that if either GoodP or myself is stuck for the night, we may want to recoup our losses from LAGP.



[/ QUOTE ]

You can't look for ways to reduce this guys losses and at the same time keep it as an option to take all of his money if you need it!

Also maybe you should set a fairly low max buyin limit? Might slow him down a bit if he realises how often he is rebuying.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree that if I have an understanding with GoodP that we stop at 3-handed, then we will have to stick with this policy regardless of our losses for the night. I'm just saying that it might be hard to follow this rule if one of us is really stuck or just wants to play longer.

We have an unspoken max buy-in limit off $20, which is 40BB. I think that most 2p2ers would think this is low enough already.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

i agree with the "if you're not good enough friends to discuss it with him" than it's not your concern about his cashflow. at the least maybe a "how about we play a tourney so everyone only has to risk x amount" We always had the guys when we played "dealer choice" a few years ago, that would hit the atm twice everytime we played...in the end, he's an adult, i personally would take his money if he didn't want to take my advice

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

[ QUOTE ]
i agree with the "if you're not good enough friends to discuss it with him" than it's not your concern about his cashflow. at the least maybe a "how about we play a tourney so everyone only has to risk x amount" We always had the guys when we played "dealer choice" a few years ago, that would hit the atm twice everytime we played...in the end, he's an adult, i personally would take his money if he didn't want to take my advice

[/ QUOTE ]

I was just typing a similar response when I saw this post.

I agree.

I think it is sort of a Passive, bordering on martyristic, move to change the rules of the home game because one guy can't handle himself. If he is a good enough friend to worry about him losing a hundred bucks then he is a good enough friend to take the effort to talk to him. Ultimately he and his wife need to handle his problem. If it is so distracting for him to be at the games, then treat it like any other guy that is behaving inappropriately - tell him he is not welcome until he changes his behavior.

UPDATE
 

[ QUOTE ]
i agree with the "if you're not good enough friends to discuss it with him" than it's not your concern about his cashflow. at the least maybe a "how about we play a tourney so everyone only has to risk x amount" We always had the guys when we played "dealer choice" a few years ago, that would hit the atm twice everytime we played...in the end, he's an adult, i personally would take his money if he didn't want to take my advice

[/ QUOTE ]

I feel like it is selling alcohol to a known alcoholic. Your own set of moral values will determine whether you are OK with this.

UPDATE:
GoodP and myself told everyone that we were going to cut the stakes in half and we wouldn't play otherwise.

So the game is now a 0.125/0.25 game (they like the chips to all have the same value, so we can't have a 0.10/0.25 game. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] Each chip is worth 0.125 and we have to play with cash on the table.. this is the type of home game I'm dealing with. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] ).

LAGP seemed to be a little upset by this (he wanted to play the normal 0.25/0.50 game), but he had no choice. His wife seemed happy with the new stakes. No one else complained

HOWEVER... LAGP and his wife still lost ~$100-125 with the help of a couple bad beats. I can only imagine how bad it would have been if we played the normal stakes.

Unfortunately, I only won ~$15 or so, mostly because I was on the losing end of a set over set situation, but no one wants to hear a bad luck story [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

Re: UPDATE
 

Has anyone tried to talk to his wife yet? Doesn't she notice, that he is losing too much?

Re: UPDATE
 

Play with a $10-$20 CAP so that players cannot lose more then a set amount in 1 hand, or allow ratholing in your game and encourage this player and any others you feel sorry for to do it.

Anykind of limitations on how deep the game is will help this player's chances. Heck, even bumping up the blinds and playing with the same amount of money or adding more blind money to the game through straddles, etc... would help him out.

Re: UPDATE
 

Just play tournaments, it isn't that hard to change back. Just say some pople voiced complains about having to risk such large, unlimited amounts of their own money.

You guys will still have big edges over the bad players, but won't feel bad in taking their money.

If you just reduce the limits it won't make a difference, especially if they're raising 5 dollars preflop in a game with 20 dollar buyins and .25/50 blinds.

However, if LagP and other losing lagtards refuse to go back to the tournament structure, I'd just accomodate their wishes and continue to take their money until they learn.

Re: UPDATE
 

[ QUOTE ]
Has anyone tried to talk to his wife yet? Doesn't she notice, that he is losing too much?

[/ QUOTE ]

She does notice, that is why she was happy that the stakes were lowered.

But it would be too awkward to openly say something like, "You guys can't afford to play at higher stakes with your poor skills, so we are lowering the stakes."

Re: UPDATE
 

Why not just say that you want to play a deeper stack poker but you don't want to price anybody out. This way you can all play for the same money but have more maneuverability.

Or just leave things as they are. If his losing at your games is affecting your relationship with him, then talk to him about it away from the game as diplomatically as you know how. It's not your responsibility to parent everybody, and to change the entire game because of one person is rather absurd.

Re: UPDATE
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why not just say that you want to play a deeper stack poker but you don't want to price anybody out. This way you can all play for the same money but have more maneuverability.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the home game I play in is about the least sophisticated in the world. They don't care about deep stack poker and probably have no idea how to adjust. They are the type of people who watch the WSOP on ESPN and say "Wow, 1 million is a good bet" without any knowledge of effective stack sizes, pot size, etc. 40BB is already deep enough for them (I'm sure they don't think about the game in terms of BB anyways). This justification is meaningless to them.

As I said a few posts ago, GoodP and myself simply said we are lowering the stakes, period (in a nice way, of course).


[ QUOTE ]
It's not your responsibility to parent everybody, and to change the entire game because of one person is rather absurd.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. But this is a small home game (almost never more than 8 players) and the guilt of 3 of the players (GoodP, my gf and me) is getting in the way of having a good time.

Should a bartender feel guilty about selling expensive liquor to an alcoholic whose financial situation is crumbling because he cannot control his addiction? It depends on the one's own moral values.

In my case, I feel guilty about taking a ton of money from LAGP when he cannot afford it... I can't help this feeling. So I decided to act on my guilt.

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

I was in a slightly similar situation at my old university. A guy in my regular game (we played $20 SNGs or .25/.50 cash) was consistently a big loser. The fact that he had a form of personality disorder probably didn't help either. We all became friendly through the game, so I ended up getting him HoH volume 1 for his birthday. He still kept losing. Some people don't get it. . .

Re: Player really can\'t afford to play
 

[ QUOTE ]
so I ended up getting him HoH volume 1 for his birthday.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like this idea. It's a subtle hint, yet not insulting in any way. It's always difficult to talk to a friend about how bad they play (obviously) because you don't want to insult their intelligence. Buying him a book as a gift literally puts his problem into his own hands. As other people have said, he's an adult capable of making his own decisions. If you give him the chance to learn and get better, there's no excuse, and IMO nothing more that you can (or should) do.

I'm in a somewhat similar situation as described in the OP, but much less intense. I have a friend (actually, one of my best friends) who is pretty bad at poker. We play $.1/.25 NLHE cash game at his request and insistence. We had played LHE and/or limit dealer's choice in the past, but now he insists on playing NLHE. Fortunately, I haven't had to take action because:
1. He's got a job
2. He has nobody to support
3. He will occasionally win (like one time in 10 he'll be up $30)
4. He usually stops buying in after $60 or $80.
5. A couple of the other players in the game aren't much better than he is (though they tend not to lose as much on average).



To OP: I think you're doing the right thing by taking action, but you need to be careful to neither insult his intelligence nor make decisions for him. He is an adult, and in the end it's solely his responsibility and his decision to manage his money. It's too bad that he keeps rebuying. He must rebuy 6 or 7 times to get $150 in the hole. Maybe you could play shorter sessions to limit his potential loss. I think stopping the game when it gets to the point of having >4 people is a good idea. When it gets down to you, GoodP, and LAGP, it's one person losing a bunch of money, and two people feeling guilty about it. What fun is that?