Cash game problems - Page 3

Lottery Larry · #21 09-13-2007, 11:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I'm a donk then. I wouldnt consider 100 a fullstack in 1/2 but w/e. In his home game it is so i guess it dont matter. Wow now i really think im crazy....
Could be the 15 hour session last night + half hour of monkey tilt towards the end where I almost ended up losing [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

"full stack" and "effective stack" are apples and oranges

pfapfap · #22 09-13-2007, 11:09 AM

Yowza, what a mess of replies!

Our game used to be .25/.50 with $20 buyin. Then $20-$40 buyin. We've just started .5/1 with $40-$100 buyin. The reason for a cap is so the stronger players can't intimidate the weaker players. We want the weaker players to feel comfortable. Some of the weaker players also have deep pockets, so it's a balancing act. As the night wears on, I'll allow increased buyins based on cirucumstances. If everybody at the table has more than the cap, then you can buy in for more (some games I've played have a "up to the shortest stack" guideline). There's no set time or amount, just what I feel is fair based on what I see. As the game wears on and we get down to shorthanded on one table, I'll pretty much allow whatever anybody wants to do (within reason).

Regarding how do you treat going busto in a casino.... there's a reason we have a special Home Poker section. This is not a casino. There is not a constant influx of money. We're all starting and finishing within a set time period. The game grows as the night goes on.

I'm of the camp that says of course you play differently in a home game depending on the size of your stack and those of your opponents. No, it's not a tournament proper, but a lot of home games tend to play that way. People will keep playing and buying in until they're busto. But people do start going home eventually so, I want as much of a chance as possible to get the chips from the big stacks. It's not a tournament, but the game does grow as the night goes on, and chips are your only weapon. People saying it's no different also seem to be failing to consider that your opponents may not be as poker theory booksmart as you are. THEY feel differently about it and a lot of times a big stack will play looser, and I want to be able to take that on to full profit. Besides, I consider myself one of the better players at my game, so why wouldn't I want to have the worse players covered, or at least matched to a significant amount? It's different, and those who approach it differently shouldn't be chided. If it didn't matter, we'd have no caps anywhere. If the reasons we have caps didn't exist, this would be a much more difficult game for all of us.

Lottery Larry · #23 09-13-2007, 11:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
the guy playing with $500 should not have a significant advantage over the guy with $100.

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP... but if that were really true, would NL be as profitable for the good players?

pfapfap · #24 09-13-2007, 11:17 AM

Direct reply to the poor newbie OP, who probably didn't expect this spiraling discussion when asking a simple question...

Allow somebody to buy in for as much as the shortest stack on the table (if it's greater than the cap). Or just feel it out. If there's the equivalent of 3 buyins per player on the table, let someone who went busto buy in double. Start the night at the standard, but after a couple of hourse use your judgment. Let people buy in for what feels balanced to you. Be more open to letting tilting players buy in for more.

You're the host, so you set the rules. As long as you attempt to be clear and fair to everybody, your players will respect you.

Javanewt · #25 09-13-2007, 11:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Be more open to letting tilting players buy in for more.

[/ QUOTE ]

I want in [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

It's funny: it seems as if the people who like bigger buy-ins when the stacks are bigger want them so that they can win more money. Sounds good to me, but that's not helping the people who keep busting out.

Lottery Larry · #26 09-13-2007, 11:59 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Direct reply to the poor newbie OP, who probably didn't expect this spiraling discussion when asking a simple question...

Allow somebody to buy in for as much as the shortest stack on the table (if it's greater than the cap). Or just feel it out. If there's the equivalent of 3 buyins per player on the table, let someone who went busto buy in double. Start the night at the standard, but after a couple of hourse use your judgment. Let people buy in for what feels balanced to you. Be more open to letting tilting players buy in for more.

You're the host, so you set the rules. As long as you attempt to be clear and fair to everybody, your players will respect you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dammit, who ASKED you to try to steer this back to reasonable, responsible answers? You trying to turn this into OOTHP?

Don't you have some dresses to try on, for your next game?

Lottery Larry · #27 09-13-2007, 12:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's that simple, when exposing new players to NL (and by new, I mean new to big-bet poker)

[/ QUOTE ]

If these players are new to big-bet poker, the last thing they need is to be able to buy in for $500 and lose it. (Unless I'm at the table!)

Heck, if they are "new," they should appreciate the low buy-in.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I forgot to include what I was referring to:

"but if so, it's good for that person to play this way and learn from it."

it's not always so easy for new-to-big-bet to pick up on this.

Ace0fSpades · #28 09-13-2007, 12:27 PM

So many dumb posts here, it's kind of rediculous. There is absolutely no advantage in having more money on the table than someone else. The $100 stacks should not be fearing the $500 stacks, it's actually more the other way around as the $100 stack can simply move all in and put the $500 stack to a decision at any time (and if the $500 stack is smart they would be more careful about making large raises in marginal spots against the $100 stack.)

diddyeinstein · #29 09-13-2007, 02:46 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So many dumb posts here, it's kind of rediculous. There is absolutely no advantage in having more money on the table than someone else. The $100 stacks should not be fearing the $500 stacks, it's actually more the other way around as the $100 stack can simply move all in and put the $500 stack to a decision at any time (and if the $500 stack is smart they would be more careful about making large raises in marginal spots against the $100 stack.)

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I was thinking.
Am I wrong, isn't this the reason people shortstack?

pfapfap · #30 09-13-2007, 02:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So many dumb posts here, it's kind of rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you're going to insult people, at least use a spell-checker. Or maybe I'm being leveled.

[ QUOTE ]
(and if the $500 stack is smart they would be more careful about making large raises in marginal spots against the $100 stack.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get this straight... the argument is that there's no difference in playing $100 or $500, yet the $500 person should play differently?

My head a splode.