home game house rules - opinions?

Timmy82 · #1 08-21-2006, 05:47 PM

I play in a small stakes NL hold'em home game that I and a friend of mine host, alternating weeks. Our buy-in range is between 25 and 75 bb. Most people start with the max buy-in.

We have a house rule stating that if you raise a bet, the new bet must be double the standing bet. So if the bet is $2, and somebody raises to $4 total, the next optional raise is to $8, instead of the standard $6. The more I think about it, the more I dislike this rule. My co-host is who came up with the rule and his reasoning is because he thinks it inspires action. I think it encourages better play from poor players who may allow you to draw by using the minraise. Any thoughts? Is my thinking flawed?

The other rule that we've been discussing is whether or not to reopen betting when somebody raises all-in, but their bet is not an amount sufficient to raise with. With our current rule double the bet rule, this could get messy. Standard rules say the betting is not reopened. I'm leaning towards following the standard rule here. I don't feel that I have a strong argument to back it up though. I don't see an advantage or disadvantage either way. My co-host sees it as this: "with the doubling of the bet, when we have a big bet like [25 bb] or so at any point, that will most likely put players on a short stack into the situation where they can't possibly make a valid raise. However, two large stacks may still be in the hand and by implementing [the standard reopening of bets rule], you are eliminating the chance for one of the big stacks to push out the other by going all in above that bet."

Any opinions on these two rules would be greatly appreciated. My opinion is to do away with the double the bet rule, and have the standard rule for reopening betting. Unless I'm persuaded otherwise.

Thanks in advance for your help.

#2 08-22-2006, 12:58 AM

I have built 2 tables and get home games together when I can. Sometimes we play different houses. It is always house owner rules. However we will sometimes put some of the rules to a vote. Of course we only play tourny's and either $5 or $10 buy in per game. We get in 2 or 3 games a night. I would not be in favor, myself, of reopening betting on the all-in scenario you stated. I also only like the rule of a raise is a raise. if the BB is 10 then as long as they are raising 20 or more it is fine with me. But that is just me....

Timmy82 · #3 08-22-2006, 12:59 PM

Godfatherfan, thanks for the reply.

Anybody else??

PokerintheI · #4 08-22-2006, 02:03 PM

Requiring a raise to be double the total bet is resoundingly stupid. The only time I've ever seen people recommend this it is because they are to stupid or lazy to figure out what a legal raise is when doing it the standard way.

Personally, I like the betting to reopen if an all-in raise is more than half of a legal raise. I've played both ways, but that is what I prefer.

Metamorphatory · #5 08-23-2006, 12:36 AM

I couldn't agree to play this way. How do people come up with these ideas? Don't play on his rotation would be my choice.

NickMPK · #6 08-23-2006, 01:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I couldn't agree to play this way. How do people come up with these ideas? Don't play on his rotation would be my choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

You would refuse to play just because of this rule? I think it's a stupid rule simply because house rules in general tend to cause confusion. But how many times is this rule going to become an issue? How prevalent are these silly-sized raises? The few times I've seen someone raise to less than double the previous bet in my home games it has been for humor value more than anything else.