| Chips on the Table, Part Two
Check out Chips on the Table.
Check out Home Game House Rules.
Check out 10 Points of Poker Etiquette.
We all know it. We can all feel it. Something big is coming. The signs are all around us...
Global depression, swine flu epidemic, Ovechkin vs. Crosby, Kobe vs. Lebron. There is an inevitable cosmic collision headed our way, and we’re all speeding towards, it whatever it is. There are so many epic events happening that global warming has fallen off the radar. So what can we do when we know we're not going to be ready? The obvious answer is ‘Look busy.’ For the Scribe, I just do what I always do. I respond to your questions.
Last time, Jim D brought up the issue of ‘chips on the table’ and asked me to clarify something in an older article. Now let’s get into one of his other questions. Jim hosts a regular .25/.25 NL Hold’em cash game where players generally buy in $10-$50. The $10 and $20 prefer to rebuy later in small amounts, if they need to, others, like Jim ‘buy in for the maximum and tend to rebuy to around $50 if I take a hit to my stack.’
Here’s how Jim describes his issue:
“During two of my games, I've ended up with a very big stack partway through the game. The chip stacks ended up being something like $10, $20, $20, $60, $10, $70, $30, $160. Several players noted that I was sitting on $100 in red chips alone, and it seemed to intimidate them. On both occasions, at least one player requested that I "take some chips off the table" to balance the game out a bit. As stated above, I am a strong opponent of partial cash-outs, but in these cases I was more sympathetic to my fellow players. I could remove half of my stack and still have the next stack covered, so it wasn't as big a deal to me.
In one of the stated cases, it almost made the difference between one or more players rebuying for $50 or not at all. In the other case, it nearly broke up the (shorthanded) game because a couple people didn't want to play against a guy with a huge stack advantage. I would've been willing to cash out some of my stack to keep the game rolling, but I didn't do it for two reasons. In one case, I had a player at the table (maybe two, don't recall exactly) who strongly opposed it, and in both cases, I didn't want to set a precedent that would make players think they're allowed to partially cash out whenever it suits them.
What do you think would be the best way to handle this kind of scenario? I tend to do well and develop a big stack as a result, and I expect this scenario to come up fairly often in future games.” – Jim D
The most important thing here is this: If you are winning, and playing well, you have no reason to upset or disrupt the table. You can keep the game going by putting $100 in your wallet and continuing to play with a reasonably big stack, or you can call it a night because people lose interest in playing. I would choose the first option, if I felt like I could keep winning.
This is one of the situations where a flexible home game is more favourable than a regimented one. I see this as a situation where a player goes up early and there is a sense of obligation to play longer so others can win their money back. It’s complete crap that you have any obligation to do so. We play for fun, sure, but we also play for money, and no one is in a position to tell me how to spend mine. I see that you are free to comply or not comply with the request to pull some money down. If the game ends because of it, by the sounds of it you’ve made a $100 in a $20 card game, a pretty good night by all counts. A casino cardroom has a waiting list of players who are going to get in the game, so players cashing out (or busting out) only helps keep the energy of the game fresh. At home, often we’re only one or two guys away from having a game at all. That said, we need a house rule that keeps unpleasantries to a minimum. As a Supreme Court Justice once put it, “The freedom to move my fist must be limited by the proximity of your chin.”
Jim hates playing short, he thrives on deep-stack play, so having him pull chips off the table interferes with his style. Further, because it’s a cash game the perceived advantage of a big stack is largely psychological; there is no blind schedule to keep pace with. Sure you’re able to bully players and set barriers to entry when you want, but no matter what players buy-in, the blinds are so low that if they pick their spots carefully they can take a big bite out of you. Even if you did buy in at $10, in a six-handed game you could potentially see 60 hands before going broke. Now, of course, with $10 you could only realistically play one or two of them to the finish, but what the hell did you think was going to happen? Buying in for $10 when other players are buying in for $50 is a real handicap.
On the other hand, playing poker isn’t about getting some of the chips; it’s about getting ALL of the chips! Players who buy in for $50 might be upset about you pulling money off the table.. Once it is off the table, you have to choose whether or not to put it back into play. As it is, everyone knows whose money it is, it’s theirs! And they should want it back! Being the chip leader, they should be taking advantage of how you’re loosening up with all that money!
Now, I’m assuming that your maximum buy-in is $50. It sounds like most of the time no one gets more than about $150 in front of them before people start to get restless. Further, I’m assuming that it is the low-stacks that are complaining, and that your game needs them to survive. You may need to consider that you’re outpacing your game’s ability or finances, and you may need to find a new game to play the stakes you want. If that’s the case, you will never find a way to satisfy your home game. You’ll either have to make due playing for less, or players will start to drop off. If that’s not the case, and you have some room to tweak the format, here’s what I would do to keep this from coming up.
1) One suggestion is to would adjust your game to the following, make the minimum buy-in $20 OR make the maximum buy in $40. Buying in at 5:1 to the maximum creates a disparity at the onset of the game; anyone who is up on the night will only be further dwarfing a $10 rebuy.
2) Put a maximum bet of $100 on your NL game. That’s already 10:1 on your minimum buy-in so the big stack advantage is still there for bullying, and it’s generally enough to cover the other big-dogs. You may want to put this as low as $50 if everyone is buying on the low side.
3) Do the #2 but make no maximum bets when heads-up. That way when the titans want to clash, they are free to do so.
Remember that you can reset your minimums and maximums after each game if you want, so if players want to keep playing, but the current game is out of reach, end the round and start a new lower stakes match. Choosing between playing and winning, or not playing?
I hope that helps,
Joel the Scribe
HomePoker.com
Got something to say about this article? Get in the conversation in our discussion forum.
|
Email this to a friend
