Cash game problems

[Triantafylidis]

i really have no idea what to think anymore... I would rather have 500 on the table than 100...idk, thats just me

[iillllii]

The stack sizes do matter because of how they change implied odds. It's really that simple.

example: If the $100 stack raises to $15 preflop, and I have pocket 5's, I won't call because I don't have the implied odds for my set. If the guy with $500 makes the same raise, I will call because I can make so much money if I hit my set.

This effects how I play against them, so it effects how they must play against me. Thus, stack sizes absolutely matter even if you can reload.

[Javanewt]

Yes, you want people at the table with $500 if you have $500 so that you can win it, but why let one person buy in for $100 and another buy in for $500 just because they busted or showed up later in the night?

[ QUOTE ]
The problem we are having is when someone gets busted later on in the game and they buy back in they cant really make a move on someone who has $500 or more

[/ QUOTE ]

Buy back in for $100 and play well. I'd think $100 would be a decent amount for someone playing a home 1/2 game regardless of stack size. (I still think you should start with 100bb buy-in.)

Is the OP only asking for people who bust out or can anyone buy in late?

If I were one of the better players, I'd just show up later, buy in for more, and win more. Why waste my time early on?

Heck, you could have a few big stacks in the first orbit -- does everybody get to buy in for more then?

If you want a bunch of big stacks at the table so that everyone can win more money, why have a cap in the first place? Or why not make the cap $500 to begin with?

[pfapfap]

Javanewt, my approach is more shades of gray than the binaries you're presenting. I try to find the appropriate balance of all factors, including how many hours are left, the average stack on the table, the tilt factor of the person buying, etc. If we're at a point where I'm allowing people to buy in for double, of course anyone at the single level can do an additional buy. It'd be silly not to let them.

The reasons to have a cap have been explained. Simply raising the cap would create the same problem at a higher level and also create new problems.

The reason to show up early is so you can build that $500 stack with one $100 buyin, rather than buying for $500. Also to get a seat at the better table.

Why do you not want to allow players to buy-in for an amount reasonable for the table?

[Holybull]

Bigger stacks > small stacks because they can win bigger pots from other big stacks.

[Lottery Larry]

[ QUOTE ]
Bigger stacks > small stacks because they can win bigger pots from other big stacks.


[/ QUOTE ]

They also can't lose an extra $400. What's your point?

[KurtSF]

Here's an idea that is used in some casinos. Let people rebuy for a certain % of the biggest stack. So if one person has a $500 stack the rebuy cap is $250, or something.

[Dromar]

I think the point trying to be made about the large stacks/small rebuy cap is this:

As the night progresses, the stack sizes at OP's game get well over the $100 cap, up to probably $400 without any difficulty. Is it a disadvantage for the guy who must rebuy for only $100? No, BUT he does have to play differently. If I sit with $100 at an 8-handed table full of people that have between $250 and $500 in $1/2 NLHE, it's different than if they all had $100 like me. Why? Because they're going to raise bigger preflop, and bet bigger on the flop, because their opponents have more money. This effectively prices out the draws of the player with only $100, which is what OP was talking about "only playing the nuts."

As a side note, anybody who talks about the tall stack "pushing around" the short stack doesn't know how to correctly play a short stack against tall stacks. If played correctly, it should be the other way around. This is mentioned in passing in NL:TAP (Playing against a bad player with $1000 and good player with $200).

As for OP's question, either raise the buy-in cap, or cut the stakes down. People should be able to buy in for at least 100bb's. IMO, you should remove the buy-in cap altogether. If people want to buy in for $1000, let them. The game is still $1/2.

[Rottersod]

[ QUOTE ]
i really have no idea what to think anymore... I would rather have 500 on the table than 100...idk, thats just me

[/ QUOTE ]

We all would but it's harder to properly play a big stack than it is to play a small stack.

[daryn]

haha this thread is so funny.. and not just because i'm drunk. to the guy that challeneged me to play heads up, i sit with 200 and he sits with 1000.. . uhhh ok?! why not? it would be exactly like if you had 200 just like me. as long as that's not the last 200 to my name, what does it matter? if i lose the 200 i pull out another 200.. boom, my stack is 200 again! if i win it ok i have 400 and you have 600.. now effective stacks are 400.. how does this matter again?