Introducing No Limit

[Lottery Larry]

[ 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...

[psandman]

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).

[Albert Moulton]

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.

[OrrLives]

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]

[n.s.]

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.

[quickfetus]

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?

[SDone]

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

[MikeTheGeek]

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.

[Zetack]

[ 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?

[MikeTheGeek]

[ 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).