Capped vs Unlimited Buy-in
At a $1/2 NL, $300 max game this weekend, every player on the table had over $300, and 3 players had over $400. When one of the players busted, he asked to buy back in for $500 in order to be close to the big stacks (and to try to recover some his losses). Everybody except one player agreed, but eventually he relented and it was allowed.
Personally, I don't mind this as I prefer deep stacks. Also, nobody can stack me for more than I have in front of me. If I have $200 and they have $10k, they can still only play for my $200. Also, if I double up and have more in front of me, I will still have a chance to double through if there are a few monster stacks. The only disadvantage I can see is if you find yourself with a stack so large (and covered) that you feel uncomfortable playing (scared money), but in this case you should quit whether there is a capped buy-in or not.
I'm curious what reasons others would have for preferring limited buy-ins?
Personally, I don't mind this as I prefer deep stacks. Also, nobody can stack me for more than I have in front of me. If I have $200 and they have $10k, they can still only play for my $200. Also, if I double up and have more in front of me, I will still have a chance to double through if there are a few monster stacks. The only disadvantage I can see is if you find yourself with a stack so large (and covered) that you feel uncomfortable playing (scared money), but in this case you should quit whether there is a capped buy-in or not.
I'm curious what reasons others would have for preferring limited buy-ins?
Comments
having a big stack is a great advantage. shouldn't there be some reward for those playing well (or incredibly lucky, ahem, shopsy) who build a big stack?
now if the guy wanting to buy in large is a large donk, hmmm, maybe it is a good idea. from what i hear, this was the situation.
I've heard this argument before and it has some validity. However, if buying in for a pre-defined max makes you a short-stack, and the short-stack is at an inherent disadvantage, what is going to attract new players to the game. If new players know they are at a disadvantage, nobody new would join the game, busted players wouldn't rebuy, and eventually the game would dry up. I know this doesn't happen in practice (partly due to players who don't understand this), but if the players are decent, doesn't a cap actually kill a game rather than help it?
Actually, I would consider this player the strongest at the table. He lost his stack due to a number of ugly hands by worse players, and a few "gotta go broke" hands.
by the same token, when the stacks get huge, should you also allow someone to take some money off the table to give the short stacks incentive to stay in?
Normally the deep stack has a big advantage in No Limit. The reason is simple. The bigger your stack the more options that you have. A short stack can have some advantage as well but because of the structure of this game someone would need to buy in really short in order to use the short stack advantage.
Short stackers normally will buy in for 20BB and then they either push or fold pre-flop.
$300 BI at 1-2 gives you 150 Big Blinds. this a really nice deep starting stack for your original buy-in. Just think for a minute at how you would go about building a pot that is going to get two players AI when they start the hand with that many chips. I would say that it would not happen very often.
Personally I would prefer the fish to be able to buyin for as much as he wants so he can lose the maximum and the good player to be limited so my bigger stack can give me advantage over him.
Example of how a bigger stack gives you an advantage:
1-2 blinds and I have $250 behind and on the button.
Villain has $150 and is in the cutoff.
Folds around to villain who makes it $15 to go. I re-raise and make it $50 to go. He needs a huge hand to call here because the rest of his stack is going in on the flop. I was able to leverage 1/5th of my stack and put pressure on his entire stack. If he calls and misses the flop he is making a decision for all of his chips. If he checks after missing the flop which he will 2/3rds of the time he can't call a raise.
/g2
Along this vein...does The Shop have a night where they run $.05 - $.10 max $3 nl? And can anyone lend me $3?
...and I've still got a couple $1 chips from 1000 Islands Gananoque that you asked me to get you, so you're 2/3rds the way there!
/g2
I completely agree with the whole stack size advantage discussion, my point is it's $300 max, therefore you buy-in for $300 you don't ask to buy-in for more....if you're not comfortable with other players having a larger stack regardless of how they got it don't play. Furthermore, Beanie, I would be interested to know if you voted to allow him to buy-in for more or were you the one who said 'no' to it given the fiasco at the Royal Cup?
I agree that someone can't just arbitrarily buyin for more than the max at the start of the game.
If it was me running the cash game I would have suggested limiting the buyin to approximately whatever the shortest stack at the table had (in the case where everyone has more than the max buyin). But in the end, it would be up to all the players at the table to agree to change the max buyin.
/g2
I'd initially say no, you don't let them do it, so I tried to figure out why let somebody go bigger? The reason is because they may not buy-in for smaller, so we would lose a player at the game (and we want this player to stay). Similarly, while I wouldn't want anyone to take money off the table, if it was a player that I did not want to leave for some reason, but they are so uncomfortable playing a big stack that they would just quit, I can see letting them take some off the table in order to keep them there. Not something to do lightly, but definitely something to think about.
This actually cleared it up for me - thanks Caddy. I was thinking that with decent players, they both "know" the same things, and realize they are playing for an effective stack (the shortest one). However, I missed/forgot that some of your decisions may be proportional to your stack (once 1/2 your stack is in your going the whole way, etc.). Dumb me.
I had absolutely no reservations about it and immediately agreed. Not sure which RC incident you are referring to? Correct.
The host is responsible for facilitating the game, but if all players agree to something (limit change, max buy-in change, straddle, etc.) it should be allowed. The trick here is that when the host stands to profit (like a casino or club), there may be other concerns. For example, if everybody agrees to increase the limits and a new player comes off the street, he may have been expecting the lower limit and isn't prepared to play the higher limit, so the host loses a patron. A nice and conflicting situation for the host
I agree and If I was hosting I would handle it this way, however it would need to be ALL players, unanimously, if even one player objected it would not be allowed. I think, especially in games around town, when groups of friends are playing it's easy to get coerced into something. Why should one player who may not want to allow a change have to change because 3 or 4 buddies want to, people should be able to enjoy a game as advertised. Nothing would piss me off more then if I showed up expecting to play $1/2 but a few gamblers show up with money to burn saying let's play $5/10. Of course I would leave but I would not be happy abouy it. If the table has a set limit, buy-in, etc. they should be firm unless ALL parties elect to change them. Which I guess in the end is what happened isn't it?
Nevermind, fiasco was an inappropriate word and I don't want it posted on a public forum.