Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:15 am GMT by pm_french
Need some advice on this one, regarding cash NL games -
Obviously, as people go bust and have to buy more chips from the bank it could be possible for a couple of people on the table to be very dominant due the size of their stacks. What I am trying to do is figure out the fairest way of preventing this.
My plan was this. Everyone gets 100 chips to start and if they run out they can buy 100 more from the bank. After this, other rebuys get them 1 x 100 denomination chip. This chip is then passed to someone on the table in exchange for 100 playing chips - the 100 denom chips cannot be used for betting.
Perhaps, it would be better (fairer) to impose rules on the maximum chips someone can have in front of them at any time, Eg, 3x initial amount.
Alternatively is there any guideline equation that gets used for determining the max amount of chips allowed on the table in a cash NL game: Eg,
MAX CHIPS = 2 x INITIAL x No OF PLAYERS
On a side note, if playing cash no limit games in card rooms do they enfore this kind of rule at all?
Did you know that participating in a poker forum can help you improve your own game? Be it by sharing experiences or simply asking for help, participation in a forum helps you focus and keep 'on topic' which will help you improve your game. You can learn from other players feedback and from their experiences. Why the THP poker forums? We offer one of the best managed texas holdem poker forums available, and the community within is far more friendly than those typicaly found on other sites. We've made a 'lurkers edition' of the poker forum available here on Holdem Poker Online, but we encourage all visitors to register and join in on the conversations on TexasHoldem-Poker.com
Posted Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:15 pm GMT by howzit
Your idea goes against the spirit of NL . . .
If you want to buy chips from another player, the cash received is what's called "table stakes". You can't pocket it technically and the cash is considered in play. And I would never want to play in a game where this isn't standard procedure.
But your house, your rules. . .
Posted Sat Mar 12, 2005 4:03 am GMT by R Deckard
The big stacks are only dominant in that they can put anyone else all-in at any time. . .but then again, this isn't a tournament, this is a cash game, so losing your whole stack of 100 (dollars? cents?) doesn't eliminate you from the game. Therefore, being put all-in by a big stack in a cash game is a completely different situation from being all-in in a tournament. In fact, having a small stack all-in against several big stacks can be advantageous in certain circumstances, e.g. going for a draw against several larger-stacked opponents--by being all-in early with a small stack, you may be able to play for the draw with good pot odds. If you had a larger stack, you might actually have to fold that draw hand, for fear of having to pay too much later on in the hand to continue drawing (bad implied odds).
I've played NL in casinos and actually don't like being the "big" stack at the table, because then I know I can't double-up against anyone heads-up. And I know that everyone is salivating at the thought of doubling-up via my stack. I'd much rather be the medium stack at the table. And if the big stacks feel looser in their play because of their perceived "profit", that's fine with me as well.
So don't sweat the stack size issue in NL cash games--the casinos don't have a problem with it, and neither should any player, as long as they realize how vastly different cash vs. tourney play is when it comes to stack size.
Posted Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:02 am GMT by JohnnyCache
If it's that much of a problem, just let re-buy at bust out be in more then one unit, IE, let a guy's number of bust outs times the starting stack be the max size he can buy when he busts.
SO - stack is 100 to start
guy busts out and rebuys 100
busts out again - it's his second bust and he can re-buy 200 (2*100)
OR just let people rebuy as much as they want at a time.
OR change to a tournament structure.
Because the question itself is silly, it's like those threads where check-raising is discussed as 'unfair' - getting a big stack is SUPPOSED to give you an advantage, you're basically saying, "We want this to be a 'gambling game' of poker where everybody just breaks even and stays friends'"
Posted Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:37 am GMT by pm_french
Can I go back to R Deckards response (2nd above):
Thanks for this, I found your thoughts very useful.
I player regularly but between a few different groups of people (usually tourney style), some that are very competitive and others that are more 'social' and consist of some players who know the rules but don't really know how to 'play' and don't understand the theory of odds etc (these are also the types that say you are killing the fun of the game if you try and explain some basic theory to them - they see the game as a gamble and a way to have fun with some mates over a beer and kebab).
The question was more aimed at the games played with the 'social' players and how to make the game less intimidating for them so they might actually begin to enjoy the game and take it a bit more seriously (which I would be made up with).
Posted Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:09 pm GMT by R Deckard
| pm_french wrote: | | The question was more aimed at the games played with the 'social' players and how to make the game less intimidating for them so they might actually begin to enjoy the game and take it a bit more seriously (which I would be made up with). |
Maybe it would further help to clarify exactly what it is about those big stacks that are so "intimidating" to the "social" players? (Gads, this is starting to sound like Freud. . .)
1. A big stack means that player has been winning, and therefore may be on a lucky streak and/or is playing well. But you encounter this issue in all forms of poker. If this is the cause for intimidation/discouragement with the "social" players, I suggest they start looking at the stack as a juicy pot ready to be won, or start playing darts instead. 
2. A big stack can put the little stack all-in, without being all-in, too. Again, what's so bad about that? A little stack should want to be covered by the big stack(s) when he has the best of it. What's so technical about this idea? If they're into "gambling", don't they want to get paid off big when they hit their hand? Would you want to play roulette when the casino only has $50 in the bank?
3. A big stack can "shut out" the other big stacks after a little stack goes all-in, thereby cutting down the pot odds of the all-in. But this is a somewhat more sophisticated play anyway--if you have players who know how to do this playing at the same table with the "social" players, you have a bigger problem than stack-size issues: grossly mismatched skill levels. Limit poker would be better for your group to play, although it won't be "as seen on TV". This is because unskilled players don't lose their money as quickly, which gives them more time to figure things out, if so inclined. Maybe you could play it with a kill or a spread limit for more "excitement". Regardless, the players who refuse to learn the deeper aspects of the game will eventually lose all their money anyway, and being broke certainly is less fun than learning a little "theory".
About limiting stack size: Actually, small table-stakes NL is really a form of spread-limit hold 'em, with a variable spread determined by stack size. But limiting people's "in play" stack is essentially fixing the limit of the spread at some point, while limiting the risk of the big stacks, not the little stacks! Allowing a big stack to take some chips off the table (or letting them exchange chips for a big chip and putting that chip out of play), is unfair to the other players: the big stack now can sock away his winnings and not have them at risk anymore. The big stack is effectively being allowed to cash-in and pocket the money, but continue playing at the table, which is strictly a no-no in all poker games. It's better to let people buy-in for an unlimited amount rather than attempt any stack limitation.
I like JohnnyCache's buy-in scheme, although keeping track of people's bust-outs may be difficult after several beers. So here's another buy-in structure to consider: at the casino $100 NL games I've played, you can re-buy in for another $100 whenever you get below $50. Whenever you go bust, you can re-buy for $150.
Posted Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:40 am GMT by pm_french
Thanks for that pal, I don't just mean the response but taking the time do a nice informative lengthy response.
You know though - after all this, I'm beginning to think I was worrying over nothing :D
For me personally, when I started out playing my fear was being put in positions were I was risking (relatively) huge amounts of cash in one go but as time went by a bit and I started learning the finer elements of the game then I don't feel as vulnerable AT THE LEVEL WE PLAY AT because you have some knowledge to make calls or fold. I probably would still be very wary at a large buy in tourny or high stakes game but I'd know not to play at this level at the moment. So back to the point, some 'social' games I've played in I've seen new starters without an ability to fold because they feel that a pair of kings is a winner when there's four to a flush on the board and they end up losing everything in one go. This was what I was trying to avoid with other groups with similar people.
As I said on an earlier post, I'm not bothered myself when I play with the main gang I play with as we are all equally competitive when it comes to this however I do feel sometimes feel quite concious on the occasions when I play with the the 'social' groups. I want these guys to develop an interest in poker which might lead to a desire to know some of the finer elements which ultimately might lead to more competitive play. This group I'm playing with on Friday consists of new players, non-folding maniac gamblers, boys who are along for the beer and think they're not being 'sporting' if they fold. These aren't the sort who I would prefer to play with but at the end of the day they are my pals and I can't say no if they ask me round.
Posted Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:35 am GMT by Always_Bored
Also keep in mind that if you were to limit someone tyo 3X the buy in then it doesnt really matter to much to the small stacks. They are all in anyway. If the big stack has 3 times or 25 times the buy in. Just my 2 cents, I personally would nto play in a No Limit game where I was limited on how many chips I could have in front of me. Another reason would be if im a short stack and i lose to another player I dont want him to be able to take money off the table. I want that money back.
|
|
