An argument for capped buy-ins in live cash games

ditpoker

Capping the max buy-in for cash games in card rooms will generate long term repeat business. Given that the vast majority of players, especially the players who add value to these games, are recreational players it should be these players that card rooms should be trying to attract to the games.

Regular players, higher stakes players who sit in with 300+ big blinds into a €1-€2 game obviously generate a greater quantity of rake and therefore are considered to be the source of income for a poker room. These players will play wherever there is greatest value and greatest potential profit, effectively, where the weaker games are. Capping the buy-in at 100 big blinds will allow the casual punter to walk in and believe he is playing on a level playing field with players with far bigger bankrolls. Rather than busting the value quickly, it will encourage repeat business as the recreational player will drop a 200 euro buy in regularly, rather than dropping a large sum of money once or twice.

For example, a player can sit in and lose 200 on a Friday night. This will not scare him off playing again as much as dropping 1000 might. He can get his gamble fix for 200. If he drops 1000 in one night trying to sit in with the regular players he will have a greater negative feeling toward live cash the next morning. In my opinion, a player is more likely to drop 200 fifty times, before he drops 1000 ten times. It is the same money being lost, but he will be a customer for longer and get greater value for his money over an extended period. Also, if a player drops 1000, after the first two or three times he may seriously consider not playing again, but dropping “just” a buy in far more regularly may not deter him as much.

In Binion’s cardroom they have two games that are similar, they have $1-$2 capped at $100 buy in and they have a $1-$3 capped at $500 buy-in. In my opinion this is win-win for the casino, as it means they cater for the people who want to spend ALOT and rake a greater amount from the $1-$3 game; also they cater for the casual player market from people who sit in with 50 big blinds. The quantity of players who sit into games with 50 big blinds (and often 25 big blinds) is quite substantial, however, these guys will get less enjoyment and be less likely to play again if they sit in with their €100, with their “gamble money” and have a €1000 and €1500 stack to his left. No matter how he plays, this is not an enjoyable situation for him as the big stacks will call €10, or €20 preflop bets all day. This is a fifth of his stack. Yes, this may be a profitable situation, however, if he is buying in short, it is quite likely that he is not playing to make a professional income, he is playing to play, he is playing for the entertainment value of the game of poker.

To use myself as an example, I played cash a long time ago and would buy-in for €100-€200 euro (depending on how flush I was at the time) and try to grind a profit. Meanwhile, Lloyd was buying in for a minimum of €200. As the games grew, my bankroll stayed the same, Lloyd’s grew, he then would sit in with a minimum of €400, and meanwhile I couldn’t afford to sit in with much more than €200. I could not afford to play on the same level in the same game as Lloyd. Then the games kept growing, now Lloyd will generally buy-in to cover the table, often €700 plus. This is optimal for Lloyd, but someone in my position was no longer able to afford to play on the same level in the same game as him. As it became an increasingly common sight to see five or six stacks of €500+ at the €1-€2 games I decreased my attendance in cash games, to a point where I stopped playing live cash over 8 months ago. I would imagine there are numerous players like me, who are recreational players, who enjoy poker as a hobby or as a form of evening entertainment whose numbers have decreased as they cannot compete on the same level as people sitting in with huge stacks.

Cool Hand Luke’s has closed and the Sporting Emporium has experienced a considerable drop in numbers. Yes, there are many other factors that have led to both of these, but I would argue that the recreational players have stopped playing as their poker entertainment became less enjoyable when sharks with bigger tanks effectively bullied them away from the table. By capping the buy-in at 50-100 big blinds you level the playing field and entice more people back to the table over and over again. Also, capped buy-ins is much closer to the norm on the internet.

I would believe, that if, for example, the Sporting Emporium modelled their cash action on that of Binion’s (i.e, €1-€2 capped @ €100, and €1-€3 capped @ €500) that they would entice more amateur players through their doors, and eventually attract the well bankrolled sharks back to capitalise on their weakness. If someone is going to lose €400, why not let them lose it over 5 hours, over 4 buy-ins, over an enjoyable session where he can play against people with similar stack sizes. Let them want to come back; let them generate more rake over a longer period.

The regular players, the customers who are there day in day out will be there regardless, games should NOT be catered for them, but rather for the customers who put money in the regular players’ pockets. Do not make the fish want to go to the cinema instead of losing €100 after a drunken session!

Macspower

capping any game at 50bb's is so ridic ...

But capping it at 100bb's has a point.... a 1/2 nl capped at 200 is a good idea....

btw I'm all on for keping the fish at the tables.... lets start with being nice to them and not abusing them for doing what they are supposed to do.... ie play bad

Macspower

Macspower wrote: »

capping any game at 50bb's is so ridic ...

But capping it at 100bb's has a point.... a 1/2 nl capped at 200 is a good idea....

I can imagine quite a few people arguing against this but I think it's a very good idea Jeff. Well written too.

cardshark202

You shouldn't have been playing the games anyway if you are not rolled for it. Also if A big fish sits in and buys in for say 200(and lets say 200 is the cap) in a 1-2 game, he can still get stacked. The only time it matters is when a big fish runs up a huge tank, and even then its possible for someone else to have run up a big tank too.
You do know that most live cash games are full of people buying in for 50bbs and less. Some fish like to see loads of money on the table with the view that if they get lucky they could win a lot.
The reason that Lukes has closed and the SE is experiencing a drop in numbers is because dublin just can't support that many cardrooms. The fitz is getting busier having taken most of the SE's customers and the jackpot has always been busy anytime I've looked in/played there.

EDIT: Basically I disagree with most of what you wrote

Ace2007

ditpoker wrote: »

The regular players, the customers who are there day in day out will be there regardless, games should NOT be catered for them, but rather for the customers who put money in the regular players’ pockets. Do not make the fish want to go to the cinema instead of losing €100 after a drunken session!

surely if a player play reg,their games shouldn't be changed that affects them in a bad way????

if you start capping games, guys who buy in for 600+ won't play there and will take their business somewhere that will allow them to buy in for that amount, hence the card room will lose out in the long run...

phantom_lord

ditpoker wrote: »

To use myself as an example, I played cash a long time ago and would buy-in for €100-€200 euro (depending on how flush I was at the time) and try to grind a profit. Meanwhile, Lloyd was buying in for a minimum of €200. As the games grew, my bankroll stayed the same, Lloyd’s grew, he then would sit in with a minimum of €400, and meanwhile I couldn’t afford to sit in with much more than €200. I could not afford to play on the same level in the same game as Lloyd. Then the games kept growing, now Lloyd will generally buy-in to cover the table, often €700 plus. This is optimal for Lloyd, but someone in my position was no longer able to afford to play on the same level in the same game as him. As it became an increasingly common sight to see five or six stacks of €500+ at the €1-€2 games I decreased my attendance in cash games, to a point where I stopped playing live cash over 8 months ago. I would imagine there are numerous players like me, who are recreational players, who enjoy poker as a hobby or as a form of evening entertainment whose numbers have decreased as they cannot compete on the same level as people sitting in with huge stacks.

i don't understand how big stacks on the table prevent you from buying in for your normal amount, or how it adversely affects you?

i think it's a silly idea, you're preventing all the regulars in the game from buying in for what they want just so some busto students wont feel out of place, with the added bonus of helping the casino rake more $$$ out of the game.

I think Jeff's idea is fine as long as the card offers the option of a cap buy-in game as well as the current system. He makes the argument that fish follow sharks and not vice-versa and if the cap game generated good rake and kept fish in the game it could only be a good thing.

CHD

Should a cap game not cap how much you can lose in a single hand?

Lets just get them to introduce €10 flips in casinos.

Theresalwaysone

ditpoker wrote: »

Capping the max buy-in for cash games in card rooms will generate long term repeat business. Given that the vast majority of players, especially the players who add value to these games, are recreational players it should be these players that card rooms should be trying to attract to the games.

Regular players, higher stakes players who sit in with 300+ big blinds into a €1-€2 game obviously generate a greater quantity of rake and therefore are considered to be the source of income for a poker room. These players will play wherever there is greatest value and greatest potential profit, effectively, where the weaker games are. Capping the buy-in at 100 big blinds will allow the casual punter to walk in and believe he is playing on a level playing field with players with far bigger bankrolls. Rather than busting the value quickly, it will encourage repeat business as the recreational player will drop a 200 euro buy in regularly, rather than dropping a large sum of money once or twice.

For example, a player can sit in and lose 200 on a Friday night. This will not scare him off playing again as much as dropping 1000 might. He can get his gamble fix for 200. If he drops 1000 in one night trying to sit in with the regular players he will have a greater negative feeling toward live cash the next morning. In my opinion, a player is more likely to drop 200 fifty times, before he drops 1000 ten times. It is the same money being lost, but he will be a customer for longer and get greater value for his money over an extended period. Also, if a player drops 1000, after the first two or three times he may seriously consider not playing again, but dropping “just” a buy in far more regularly may not deter him as much.

In Binion’s cardroom they have two games that are similar, they have $1-$2 capped at $100 buy in and they have a $1-$3 capped at $500 buy-in. In my opinion this is win-win for the casino, as it means they cater for the people who want to spend ALOT and rake a greater amount from the $1-$3 game; also they cater for the casual player market from people who sit in with 50 big blinds. The quantity of players who sit into games with 50 big blinds (and often 25 big blinds) is quite substantial, however, these guys will get less enjoyment and be less likely to play again if they sit in with their €100, with their “gamble money” and have a €1000 and €1500 stack to his left. No matter how he plays, this is not an enjoyable situation for him as the big stacks will call €10, or €20 preflop bets all day. This is a fifth of his stack. Yes, this may be a profitable situation, however, if he is buying in short, it is quite likely that he is not playing to make a professional income, he is playing to play, he is playing for the entertainment value of the game of poker.

To use myself as an example, I played cash a long time ago and would buy-in for €100-€200 euro (depending on how flush I was at the time) and try to grind a profit. Meanwhile, Lloyd was buying in for a minimum of €200. As the games grew, my bankroll stayed the same, Lloyd’s grew, he then would sit in with a minimum of €400, and meanwhile I couldn’t afford to sit in with much more than €200. I could not afford to play on the same level in the same game as Lloyd. Then the games kept growing, now Lloyd will generally buy-in to cover the table, often €700 plus. This is optimal for Lloyd, but someone in my position was no longer able to afford to play on the same level in the same game as him. As it became an increasingly common sight to see five or six stacks of €500+ at the €1-€2 games I decreased my attendance in cash games, to a point where I stopped playing live cash over 8 months ago. I would imagine there are numerous players like me, who are recreational players, who enjoy poker as a hobby or as a form of evening entertainment whose numbers have decreased as they cannot compete on the same level as people sitting in with huge stacks.

Cool Hand Luke’s has closed and the Sporting Emporium has experienced a considerable drop in numbers. Yes, there are many other factors that have led to both of these, but I would argue that the recreational players have stopped playing as their poker entertainment became less enjoyable when sharks with bigger tanks effectively bullied them away from the table. By capping the buy-in at 50-100 big blinds you level the playing field and entice more people back to the table over and over again. Also, capped buy-ins is much closer to the norm on the internet.

I would believe, that if, for example, the Sporting Emporium modelled their cash action on that of Binion’s (i.e, €1-€2 capped @ €100, and €1-€3 capped @ €500) that they would entice more amateur players through their doors, and eventually attract the well bankrolled sharks back to capitalise on their weakness. If someone is going to lose €400, why not let them lose it over 5 hours, over 4 buy-ins, over an enjoyable session where he can play against people with similar stack sizes. Let them want to come back; let them generate more rake over a longer period.

The regular players, the customers who are there day in day out will be there regardless, games should NOT be catered for them, but rather for the customers who put money in the regular players’ pockets. Do not make the fish want to go to the cinema instead of losing €100 after a drunken session!

Um, same thing really isnt it? Besides that though, I do think its a terrible idea. You can never really gauge whether a capped game or non capped game is enticing more players through the door. As mentioned before, lukes closed because of the fact that dublin couldnt sustain that many cardrooms.

DeadParrot

Deleted User wrote: »

I think Jeff's idea is fine as long as the card offers the option of a cap buy-in game as well as the current system. He makes the argument that fish follow sharks and not vice-versa and if the cap game generated good rake and kept fish in the game it could only be a good thing.

^^^^^^
and a very well thought out argument jeff. I can of course see why you are getting some strong disagreement, but I'm sure a capped game would attract more recreational players

ditpoker

P_L, cardshark... say you play 2-4 online, capped buy online is 400, yea? if it was uncapped, what would you sit in with? 1600?? now what would you do if you are bankrolled to sit in with 500 as a standard buy in but the biggest games spread online stopped at 2-4, so all the nose bleed limits drop down to play 2-4, so now you sit in at a six handed table with 500, and the other 5 players have a min of 5k on the table. This has to change how you, someone with 5k in front of them worries far less about a 3bb raise than someone with 100bb's in front of them. I've no doubt having 500 at the table with 5x5k stacks at 2-4 game is a profitable situation for good players, but the majority of players are losing players, and the majority of players, are playing not for profit but for entertainment. Why do online poker sites cap buy ins?

Also, you say cardrooms shouldnt cater for busto stakes students. So assuming that anyone who is learning/getting into the game wants to play low stakes, where do you suggest these players play? should everyone who is not rolled for dublin's 1-2 game limit themselves to the jackpot 20 game? That game gets 60+ runners regularly, do we not want these new players in cash games? If we are forcing the lower stakes players out of the game by restricting their gaming options they will leave, thus the player pool dries up.

The next level is always funded by the previous level. (rough numbers)
100,000 players at 10c-20c, the winning players graduate to 25c-50c, so say 50,000 players move up
50,000 play 50c-20c, the winning players graduate to 50-1, so say 25,000 players move up
25,000 play at 50-1, winning players move up to 1-2, say 15,000 move up
15,000 play at 1-2 etc etc etc etc until you get to the say 1000 players who play $50-$100+

If you cut out the lower levels, the arena for busto stakes students, new players, broke pub players, degenerates with tiny rolls, then the player pool decreases, numbers fall, and then 1-2 game dries up. Every club in dublin was busier 2 years ago, agree??

The reason that Lukes has closed and the SE is experiencing a drop in numbers is because dublin just can't support that many cardrooms.

Dublin supported that many card rooms very well for a time, but the player pool dropped, because (in my opinion) cardrooms became more concerned about spreading games for the winnings players (the minority) and pushed the losing players (the majority) out of the game by allowing games get too big for their pockets. I agree any lower than $1-$2 and it no longer becomes viable business for a casino, but its bums in seats they want. The SE introduced the NL game to "cater for demand" so players who are winning, who are regular customers can sit in with bigger tanks and get bigger pots, then because it was soooo deep, the straddle became a common bet, so now the 1-2-5 NL game is being played, is a busto student, the new lifeblood of the game, going to sit into a 1-2-5 game with 100? he'd be mad to. Especially if everyone else at the table has 500+.

Where should someone like him play? Surely we want as many people in cardrooms as possible, not scaring them off. If the game is capped at $200 for a $1-$2 game the straddle bet would be far less common and someone with $100 could more than justify sitting in with the exact same players. Which of the below two options is someone new to the game, with some discretionary income more likely to sit into, and come back to?

Example 1:
Blinds: $1-$2 (and $5 straddle) - uncapped NL
Seat 1: Jayminator, $800
Seat 2: BCB, $1200
Seat 3: Seat Open, do you take this if you have $100?
Seat 4: AKQJ10, $650
Seat 5: Mick_ste, $1500
Seat 6: Lloyd, $1000


Example 2:
Blinds: $1-$2 NL capped at $200
Seat 1: Jayminator, $200
Seat 2: BCB, $200
Seat 3: Seat Open, do you take this if you have $100?
Seat 4: AKQJ10, $200
Seat 5: Mick_ste, $200
Seat 6: Lloyd, $200

Surely example 2 is the better option?

if you start capping games, guys who buy in for 600+ won't play there and will take their business somewhere that will allow them to buy in for that amount, hence the card room will lose out in the long run...

Surely these guys will play where there are the bigger number of weak players? And up to now cardrooms have been catering for these guys, and these guys are delighted. But the guys that fund these games, the value for these players to beat, are not attending as often. So from a game economics position I'd argue that uncapped games where guys sit in deep rakes more and attracts players from a pool of say 100 players who buy in deep. But in the long run, the number of players who dont buy in deep is greater, say 1000, those 1000 players who buy in short are being forced out of the game as they would be mad to sit in for 50-100bb's into a game thats playing 400bb's deep. So, the bigger player pool doesnt play, the bigger player pool stays home and plays a home game. So it ends with the 100 guys who can buy in deep playing their own game amongst themselves, in one card room or another, and eventually, in the long run, player pools drop, and the game dies, and a card room closes.

i don't understand how big stacks on the table prevent you from buying in for your normal amount, or how it adversely affects you?

big stacks obviously affect your play. naturally someone with $1000's range for calling a $10 preflop raise is wider than someone with $200. You end up with the situation where the winning strategy is sit and wait sit and wait and get big hand and get paid off, this, as you know from when you played the fitz is BORING, and eventually if its that kind of profit your after you stay home and play 10+ tables and grind easier profit. If you play poker as a hobby, as entertainment (which the vast majority of players in Dublin do) having to sit and wait to get paid off by the big stacks is dull. profitable, yes, interesting, no. effectively, buying in for your normal amount in a 1-2 nl game against a common straddle against guys who regularly juice it to 20 will prevent you from playing as the game is artificially increased.

i think it's a silly idea, you're preventing all the regulars in the game from buying in for what they want just so some busto students wont feel out of place, with the added bonus of helping the casino rake more $$$ out of the game.

:eek: where should the busto students play? you have made my argument for me right there!!! you have effectively said "lets make busto students feel out of place in a dublin cardroom" so... you've made my point for me. Busto students, and busto workers, and new players, and drunk fellas looking for a spin, are being made to feel out of place so that the regulars can stick $1000+ on the table. so your regulars, all 100 of them, will play, regularly, like regulars will. but the other players, the non regs are being made to feel "out of place". So they dont play. So the casino's have a player pool of 100 regulars. Suppose you do cap the games, and you do get more busto level students/recreational players back into the casino, do you think regular players will become any less regular??

YULETIRED

good stuff Jeff, I hope poker Ireland gets this kind of input into their events...I like the zeal........I think there is an argument for having both capped and uncapped games. The drop off in players is simply an effect of fund depletion from the small and big fish.....the pinching has begun...

However if people like yerself and JP et al keep applying the grey matter and enthusiasm the fish may come swimming back albeit with a tighter grip on thier monies.....

good work batman....Now do all your posts have to refer to LLoyd?

ozpoker

I agree with ditpoker - capped big bet games are a win-win for the poker rooms and the good players.

In the US prior to the boom, NLH would occasionally become popular at one room or another. But the same thing happened time after time: because the good players fleece the bad players too quickly, the games always burnt out and the fish were driven away. I believe that the introduction of capped games has kept the games alive in the US, and the local rooms would benefit from this rule change.

ditpoker

YULETIRED wrote: »

good work batman....Now do all your posts have to refer to LLoyd?

lol ... point taken!

aodea

ditpoker wrote: »

lol ... point taken!

his may not but all mine have to refer to Jeffs sister!!!!:)

AKQJ10

o dont mind capped buyins that much but i think it should be like 200BB cap rather than 1. Thing about having capped buyin games generally help to spread more games. I would say you'd get more 2-5 games going in Dublin if they were capped and maybe some 5-10

aodea

on a serious note australia is capped aswell and this sees there card rooms such as star city have games going constantly with ten tables lus all the time. the 200cap game feeds players to the 500 cap game as when someone gets 500 they ask to move happens all the time do it myself. also in cap games i feel people tend to be more likely to rebuy. if everyone starts with 200 and u bust a rebuy will still see u with a stack that is competive with the bigger stacks at the table as they may only be 200-500.


jeffs sister nah nah nah

BrotherTotz

Long time lurker here but said I would give my 2 cents as myself and plenty of my poker playing friends would fit into the group/type of people that DitPoker would be trying to attract to a card room to play cash. I’ve played a fair few tournaments (but all below €100 buy in) around Dublin and at a local cardroom and have made a solid profit from these. I've played a fair bit online too but prefer live as I would be a "recreational" player.

Before you go "yea whatever lol donkaments busto f##king students donk muppets" I haven’t put in more than 20 000 hands online because between final year of my degree (just finished), part time work and other commitments (e.g. GAA training/matches) sitting in front of the laptop grinding with PA hud stats isn’t overly fun. (Only learned the rules of poker a year ago)

I love playing poker and want to move on to higher buy in tourneys/play more online/cash live when I'm not studying and working full time so obviously have more disposable income. Have won consistently playing against my peers now so want to step up a little when exams are finished and wages are coming my way. So surely my friends and I are the type of donk/up and coming fish that the special ones/geniuses of live Jackpot/Fitz cash want coming in locked at the wkends after work with wages in my pocket.

DitPoker makes some great points in his well thought out argument and I don’t see how a mixture of capped games wouldn’t encourage more casual players into card rooms and obviously therefore don’t see how these better rolled sharks wouldn’t love that!??

Personally (yes-lol-no-rollz-student) I was going to play 1/1 to see what live cash was like when it was in the Jackpot on Sundays. Happy to play with better obviously more experienced players in order to learn/try live cash. But heard from a friend it played very deep so obviously didn’t want to go in with my2 buyins of €100 and sit either side of these players when as well as all that they had 6/700 bbs.

What I’m trying to say is I know lots of younger fellas who are nearing the end of/just out of college that are not good or experienced at playing cash games in a cardroom. Much more of these could definitely be enticed in with some occasional offers of capped games.

So far in this thread there have been a lot of posts which sum up the attitude of some better players.

Don’t accommodate the noob/fish/make him feel awkward when obviously it is or is or is more or less his first time here and then berate the idiot when he makes a beginner mistake.

Surely it would be get them in with some capped games…even if you don’t want to play in them don’t..it will put bums on seats and then most of these will move on to nl/uncapped games like Dit was saying.

cardshark202

players with deep stacks who don't worry about calling a tenner bet regardless of the effective stack sizes are idiots. they are fishy. i want to play these players

El Stuntman

ditpoker wrote: »

Which of the below two options is someone new to the game, with some discretionary income more likely to sit into, and come back to?

Example 1:
Blinds: $1-$2 (and $5 straddle) - uncapped NL
Seat 1: Jayminator, $800
Seat 2: BCB, $1200
Seat 3: Seat Open, do you take this if you have $1000?
Seat 4: AKQJ10, $650
Seat 5: Mick_ste, $1500
Seat 6: Lloyd, $1000


Example 2:
Blinds: $1-$2 NL capped at $200
Seat 1: Jayminator, $200
Seat 2: BCB, $200
Seat 3: Seat Open, do you take this if you have $100?
Seat 4: AKQJ10, $200
Seat 5: Mick_ste, $200
Seat 6: Lloyd, $200

Surely example 2 is the better option?

option 1, a big fish on my right with a tank :pac:

cardshark202

ditpoker wrote: »

Example 1:
Blinds: $1-$2 (and $5 straddle) - uncapped NL
Seat 1: Jayminator, $800
Seat 2: BCB, $1200
Seat 3: Seat Open, do you take this if you have $100?
Seat 4: AKQJ10, $650
Seat 5: Mick_ste, $1500
Seat 6: Lloyd, $1000


Example 2:
Blinds: $1-$2 NL capped at $200
Seat 1: Jayminator, $200
Seat 2: BCB, $200
Seat 3: Seat Open, do you take this if you have $100?
Seat 4: AKQJ10, $200
Seat 5: Mick_ste, $200
Seat 6: Lloyd, $200

Surely example 2 is the better option?

No it isnt. In example 1 you have all these deep stacks who will give you action all day cos sure its only a tenner, only a pony, etc etc..

But the real answer is that you shouldn't take either seat cos you're not rolled to play.

BarrierReef

I agree with alot of the OP, I love playing cash in vegas in the capped Games in the Bellagio in the "smaller" games 2/5 and 5/10, they min buy-in is 100 small blinds and the max buy in is 100 big blinds. This works extremly well over there. ( I know there is alot of traffic etc... ) but the games are great.

Uncapped buy-ins don't work imo in the must move games that we have here. I am an occassional player, I can afford to sit down at most tables in Dublin and cover all the stacks and play deep stack poker ( except the 100 PLO game in the fitz ) , but instead when I come in the route to get to the main game is to sit through a few hours of feeder tables with with guys playing small stacks etc.. This is not much fun at all and that is part of the reason why I don't play cash live anymore. The other option was the NL game in the SE which generally had 5 or 6 stong players and I was the soft spot especially after a few pints.

I really think that thing that Dublin is missing with regards to poker is a progression in limits on the cash games, Say someone is beating all the 1/2 and 2/5 games, there is no bigger games to aspire to play in and to take shots at. Not sure how you fix all that, but I think the OP is on the right path with capped buy-ins there would be a variety of games spread around the city.

There are alot of v.rich people in this city who would play higher stakes if there was games going, but they have no interest in playing low stakes.

bohsman

As per usual Im gonna disagree with Jeff.

Example 1:
Blinds: $1-$2 (and $5 straddle) - uncapped NL
Seat 1: Jayminator, $800
Seat 2: BCB, $1200
Seat 3: Seat Open, do you take this if you have $100?
Seat 4: AKQJ10, $650
Seat 5: Mick_ste, $1500
Seat 6: Lloyd, $1000


Example 2:
Blinds: $1-$2 NL capped at $200
Seat 1: Jayminator, $200
Seat 2: BCB, $200
Seat 3: Seat Open, do you take this if you have $100?
Seat 4: AKQJ10, $200
Seat 5: Mick_ste, $200
Seat 6: Lloyd, $200

The 2nd game isnt going to happen, its going to run as a 5/10 game with a 1k cap, the playerpool will be split even more. Theres no way Im going all the way into town to play a 200 max buyin game so Ill ask for a list for a 500 cap game.

Other reasons for the player pool decreasing by the way, every little town has a casino/regular well run pub game now, people dont need to travel, people used to come in from as far as Drogheda for nightly games and stay most of the night as they were there anyway, and more and more people are learning to play online now.

Hectorjelly

I wrote a long response to this last night, but the boards server went down and my gf opened up loads of tabs about fashion so I lost it. Basically you have it exactly the wrong way around, it helps a shortstack to have lots of largestacks around who dont care about it as they will tend to make terrible decisions for amounts of money they see as meaningless. Also, the deep stacked nature of their play should give any shortstack plenty of opportunities to get his money in in a + EV situation.

So basically, instead of trying to get the dublin casinos to make their games more restrictive, you would be better off learning how to play poker well and exploit other players weaknesses

5starpool

If Dublin cardrooms had only capped buyins I wouldn't play. I don't generally buy in that deep myself (usually 200-300, mostly 250 for first buyin anyhow) but I know loads of people want to buyin to cover the table and this is generally good for the game, especially if they are steaming, or bad players.

ditpoker

bohsman wrote: »

As per usual Im gonna disagree with Jeff.

.....

The 2nd game isnt going to happen, its going to run as a 5/10 game with a 1k cap, the playerpool will be split even more. Theres no way Im going all the way into town to play a 200 max buyin game so Ill ask for a list for a 500 cap game.
.

if people with bigger rolls want to play bigger, they put their names down for a $500 game if the $200 game is too small. Then if the $500 game is too small, they can put their name down for a $1000 game, etc.

currently you have $100 players and $500 players and $1000 players all in the same game,so the $100 players will stop playing.

HectorJelly wrote:

I wrote a long response to this last night, but the boards server went down and my gf opened up loads of tabs about fashion so I lost it. Basically you have it exactly the wrong way around, it helps a shortstack to have lots of largestacks around who dont care about it as they will tend to make terrible decisions for amounts of money they see as meaningless. Also, the deep stacked nature of their play should give any shortstack plenty of opportunities to get his money in in a + EV situation.

So basically, instead of trying to get the dublin casinos to make their games more restrictive, you would be better off learning how to play poker well and exploit other players weaknesses

HJ, i completely agree that from a poker/win-rate/profitable situation/+EV position that uncapped is much better for someone who wants to earn a profit. but... i believe the majority of players, are losing players and play for entertainment, not profit, capped games let them effectively pay $200 for an evenings entertainment. The current uncapped system is less entertainment, more business.

Basically, if you consider poker a business, you want it uncapped. If you consider poker a game/hobby you want it capped. The question is whether casinos are better being set up as an entertainment medium like a cinema or football match where people go to have fun, or as a facilitator for people to run their business (poker pro, poker winner) through.

bohsman

ditpoker wrote: »

if people with bigger rolls want to play bigger, they put their names down for a $500 game if the $200 game is too small. Then if the $500 game is too small, they can put their name down for a $1000 game, etc.

currently you have $100 players and $500 players and $1000 players all in the same game,so the $100 players will stop playing.

Absolutely, but if a game doesnt start they sit into the small game and think twice about going in the next night. The €100 players havent stopped playing so I dont see why you would get rid of all your bigger players just to make a few more poor people feel safe.

And on the business/entertainment thing - you're missing the 3rd one probably more widespread than the entertainment people - gamblers, they want a shot at the big tanks.

Hectorjelly

Most bad players go to the casino and buy in for 50 or 100 euros. I dont see how a capped buyin would effect the vast majority of bad players.

At present the 12 game suits several different types of people, the people who are happy to lose 2/400, and the people who have more money and want to play a deeper game. All capping it would do is massage the ego of people who want to buy in for 200.

ditpoker

5starpool wrote: »

If Dublin cardrooms had only capped buyins I wouldn't play. I don't generally buy in that deep myself (usually 200-300, mostly 250 for first buyin anyhow) but I know loads of people want to buyin to cover the table and this is generally good for the game, especially if they are steaming, or bad players.

Why wouldnt you play? you'd still be buying in for approx 200, and everyone else will have a similar level of chips.

Would you agree that the people you know who like to buy in to cover the table are in the minority? Surely these people (most of them) would either a) continue to play $1-$2 capped, or put their names on a list for up to a $5-$10 game. Capping the games would also lead to instead of say 10 $1-$2 games, you might get seven $1-$2 games, two $2-$5 games, and one $5-$10 game. Surely that would cater for more markets?

5starpool

ditpoker wrote: »

HJ, i completely agree that from a poker/win-rate/profitable situation/+EV position that uncapped is much better for someone who wants to earn a profit. but... i believe the majority of players, are losing players and play for entertainment, not profit, capped games let them effectively pay $200 for an evenings entertainment. The current uncapped system is less entertainment, more business.

Basically, if you consider poker a business, you want it uncapped. If you consider poker a game/hobby you want it capped. The question is whether casinos are better being set up as an entertainment medium like a cinema or football match where people go to have fun, or as a facilitator for people to run their business (poker pro, poker winner) through.

We aren't casinos, we are players, so by your rationale you are asking the wrong audience.

Also, I tihnk if you capped the game at 100bb's then most of the better players (by live standards) will disappear or go somewhere uncapped and I don't think there will be enough new business to replace them so they will lose business. Also, some of them are pure sickos who need big stacks and big pots or else they will move on to something else that fulfills this need for them.

Also, most casinos make a small % of their income from poker so care less about it really.

BarrierReef

Hectorjelly wrote: »

it helps a shortstack to have lots of largestacks around who dont care about it as they will tend to make terrible decisions for amounts of money they see as meaningless.

If they know what they are doing and are playing a short stack strategy, I agree, however these players generally are playing with all the money in their pocket and don't like the idea of having to play their entire stack in one hand.

Hectorjelly wrote: »

Also, the deep stacked nature of their play should give any shortstack plenty of opportunities to get his money in in a + EV situation.

They don't know what +EV is , they just know that they feel uncomfortable in a game that is much bigger than they can afford to play with people who aren't making them feel very welcome, as they would prefer another larger stack to play. [/QUOTE]

Hectorjelly wrote: »

So basically, instead of trying to get the dublin casinos to make their games more restrictive, you would be better off learning how to play poker well and exploit other players weaknesses

As I said in my response, Capped Buy-ins in some games would naturally cause different limits being spread, with the higher limit games being un-capped.

bohsman

Hectorjelly wrote: »

At present the 12 game suits several different types of people, the people who are happy to lose 2/400, and the people who have more money and want to play a deeper game.

Thats it in a nutshell really, fair enough if a casino is getting 10 games a night they could try cap games but in reality they should be thinking - if it aint broke...

As for smaller poker rooms, ok 3 people on the list for the 200PLH, 2 for the 500PLH and 4 for omaha - lads wanna play a round of each? Say make the blinds smaller for the omaha as the holdem lads havent played before and say 1/2 for the holdem, no cap on the buyin, we'll spread it into seperate games once a few more come in.

That said Lukes had caps on the buyins, a 50 game was 50min 500max, 100 game 100min 1000max etc...

YULETIRED

SIt n Gos Jeff?
The cap is the entry fee. However I'm not sure there are casnios who offer these as cash games, only as Satts.... Jp caters for them though.

Oscar, are you getting lazer eye surgery?, you spoiler seems to indicate something.....

phantom_lord

ditpoker wrote: »

if people with bigger rolls want to play bigger, they put their names down for a $500 game if the $200 game is too small. Then if the $500 game is too small, they can put their name down for a $1000 game, etc.

currently you have $100 players and $500 players and $1000 players all in the same game,so the $100 players will stop playing.



HJ, i completely agree that from a poker/win-rate/profitable situation/+EV position that uncapped is much better for someone who wants to earn a profit. but... i believe the majority of players, are losing players and play for entertainment, not profit, capped games let them effectively pay $200 for an evenings entertainment. The current uncapped system is less entertainment, more business.

Basically, if you consider poker a business, you want it uncapped. If you consider poker a game/hobby you want it capped. The question is whether casinos are better being set up as an entertainment medium like a cinema or football match where people go to have fun, or as a facilitator for people to run their business (poker pro, poker winner) through.

how does having big stacks around you ruin your entertainment?*

ditpoker

phantom_lord wrote: »

how does having big stacks around you ruin your entertainment?*

cos it does???

the dynamic of a deep stacked table is hugely different. if buying in for 200 is effectively shortstacking when the rest of the table has 1k+ then the strategy is hugely different. you obviously understand how effective stacks influence play. basically the best way to play against bigger stacks, effectively a short stacking policy is to get it all in pre for a big pot. basically your playing all your poker preflop, very rarely will you play a flop.

phantom_lord

ditpoker wrote: »

cos it does???

the dynamic of a deep stacked table is hugely different. if buying in for 200 is effectively shortstacking when the rest of the table has 1k+ then the strategy is hugely different. you obviously understand how effective stacks influence play. basically the best way to play against bigger stacks, effectively a short stacking policy is to get it all in pre for a big pot. basically your playing all your poker preflop, very rarely will you play a flop.

that's not true. playing 100bbs deep when everyone else has 500+ is very different from when u have 20bbs and everyone else has 100bbs.

bohsman

ditpoker wrote: »

cos it does???

the dynamic of a deep stacked table is hugely different. if buying in for 200 is effectively shortstacking when the rest of the table has 1k+ then the strategy is hugely different. you obviously understand how effective stacks influence play. basically the best way to play against bigger stacks, effectively a short stacking policy is to get it all in pre for a big pot. basically your playing all your poker preflop, very rarely will you play a flop.

100bbs shouldnt be played as if it was a short stack no matter what the other stacks are and it wouldnt be a shortstack in the majority of games in Dublin.

ditpoker

Obviously some of you think the games should be uncapped, so with that in mind, can you answer the following.

1. Why are games online capped?

2. Why are games in Vegas/Australia/UK capped?

3. Why do Irish casinos go against the grain in this regard, why do we have uncapped games, unlike the obvious industry leaders in Vegas and the US in general?

ditpoker

phantom_lord wrote: »

that's not true. playing 100bbs deep when everyone else has 500+ is very different from when u have 20bbs and everyone else has 100bbs.

bohsman wrote: »

100bbs shouldnt be played as if it was a short stack no matter what the other stacks are and it wouldnt be a shortstack in the majority of games in Dublin.

Example:

i have 200, I raise with 99 to 8. Now, at a table with 8 other players I would imagine if they are all playing 100-300 in a capped game that I would get action in one or 2 spots. However, if there are 6 players playing 1k i would expect action from 4-5 players cos "its just 8" it is a far smaller % of their stack, and therefore much more willing to call. equally, it is easier for someone with 1k in front of them to pump it to 25 than it is for someone with 200 to pump it to 25. and now say i push over for 200, the decision to call to call 200 is easier for someone with 1k than it is for someone to call if they too only have 200.

really, if you think the stack sizes dont affect how the game is played your delusional. if you think you play the same regardless you;re confused. for example, if you play $1-$2 and sit into a 2c-4c game with $500, and someone pushes for $5, you'll call all day. is it profitable, probably, is it fun having to play push/fold poker, probably not.

CHD

But thats poker isn't it?

You can't make everyone happy

phantom_lord

ditpoker wrote: »

Example:

i have 200, I raise with 99 to 8. Now, at a table with 8 other players I would imagine if they are all playing 100-300 in a capped game that I would get action in one or 2 spots. However, if there are 6 players playing 1k i would expect action from 4-5 players cos "its just 8" it is a far smaller % of their stack, and therefore much more willing to call. equally, it is easier for someone with 1k in front of them to pump it to 25 than it is for someone with 200 to pump it to 25. and now say i push over for 200, the decision to call to call 200 is easier for someone with 1k than it is for someone to call if they too only have 200.


really, if you think the stack sizes dont affect how the game is played your delusional. if you think you play the same regardless you;re confused. for example, if you play $1-$2 and sit into a 2c-4c game with $500, and someone pushes for $5, you'll call all day. is it profitable, probably, is it fun having to play push/fold poker, probably not.

sorry jeff but i don't think u really understand what you're talking about

Trippie

ditpoker wrote: »

2. Why are games in Vegas/Australia/UK capped?

3. Why do Irish casinos go against the grain in this regard, why do we have uncapped games, unlike the obvious industry leaders in Vegas and the US in general?[/B]

the games are capped to increase the length of time a player will be at the table another way around that is pot limit which is the norm here. a capped pot limit game would make me cry

ditpoker

Trippie wrote: »

the games are capped to increase the length of time a player will be at the table another way around that is pot limit which is the norm here. a capped pot limit game would make me cry

capped NL is what im suggesting

bohsman

ditpoker wrote: »

Obviously some of you think the games should be uncapped, so with that in mind, can you answer the following.

1. Why are games online capped?

2. Why are games in Vegas/Australia/UK capped?

3. Why do Irish casinos go against the grain in this regard, why do we have uncapped games, unlike the obvious industry leaders in Vegas and the US in general?

To keep the fish in the game for longer, theres not much competition and theres enough players to have loads of games, games are more so capped in tourist traps in Vegas, Binions, the Nugget etc games are generally uncapped.

Pot Limit is another reason, its a far smaller game and means theres less reason to protect the fish with caps.

As for your 99 reasoning, adjust your game and get rich while the others go broke, soon youll be the one with the 1k tank - still not push or fold poker. I tried to play 20NL online recently,lost 9 buyins in 1300 hands.

This is worse than the time you were posting random stuff out of boredom. A lot of your arguments are just repeats, HJs answer should have killed the thread really.

ditpoker

phantom_lord wrote: »

sorry jeff but i don't think u really understand what you're talking about

do you really think games play the size regardless of stack size? really!?!?!

bohsman

ditpoker wrote: »

capped NL is what im suggesting

Its practically impossible to get a NL game going capped or uncapped. Seriously, I dont get it but ask 50 randomers that walk into a casino "do you want down for the NL or the PL 50 game?" 45 say PL.

ditpoker

bohsman wrote: »

To keep the fish in the game for longer, theres not much competition and theres enough players to have loads of games, games are more so capped in tourist traps in Vegas, Binions, the Nugget etc games are generally uncapped.

Pot Limit is another reason, its a far smaller game and means theres less reason to protect the fish with caps.

Firstly, Binions and the Nugget strictly have capped only. I am 100000% positive of this.

Secondly, you would prefer fish are unprotected and out of the game quicker? surely you want the fish to stay in the game, for longer???

bohsman

ditpoker wrote: »

Firstly, Binions and the Nugget strictly have capped only. I am 100000% positive of this.

Secondly, you would prefer fish are unprotected and out of the game quicker? surely you want the fish to stay in the game, for longer???

In that case it has changed since the WSOP left, the games used to be uncapped, remeber seeing the Duke of Fremont St with a money clip with 1000s on the table.

No, I want to get the fishs money before the rake gets it, I want their money and them to reload. Seriously, you realise you are jumping the major arguments against and nitpicking small unimportant bits.

Again fill cap games and the casinos will run them as long as you arent doing their regulars out of a game.

ditpoker

what major arguments am i missing?

Ace2007

ditpoker wrote: »

Example 2:
Blinds: $1-$2 NL capped at $200[/B]
Seat 1: Jayminator, $200
Seat 2: BCB, $200
Seat 3: Seat Open, do you take this if you have $100?
Seat 4: AKQJ10, $200
Seat 5: Mick_ste, $200
Seat 6: Lloyd, $200

lets take this game for an example - suppose you sit in with your 100, and then jay gets his entire stack in with K high against AKQ10J's bottow pair - now Jay is down 200 quid and mark has 400.

if Jay wants to rebuy - can he only buy in for 200? if so its going to be hard for him to get his money back,

then you have Lloyd who plays fairly tight - if he sits there half the nite and finally picks up a hand and gets it all in ~ 200 and mark calls him with a 2 high flush, you'll end up with the possible situation that mark could now around 600 quid, jay has bluffed off another 200 - so is now down 400, and Llyod can only rebuy back for 200.

so the table could be like this now:

Blinds: $1-$2 NL capped at $200[/B]
Seat 1: Jayminator, $200 ( -$400)
Seat 2: BCB, $275
Seat 3: Seat Open, do you take this if you have $100? ( -$100)
Seat 4: AKQJ10, $650
Seat 5: Mick_ste, $300
Seat 6: Lloyd, $200 ( -$200)


Now how long do you think that jay is going to rebuy for 200 - he's going to get sick of it - and just leave the game and won't come back - so eventually your just going to have a table full of students playing 1/2 NL with 100 quid in front of them except maybe mark who will stay to take their money.

Reggie already said that you shouldn't be playin this game unless you rolled for it..... but think you chose to ignore it

ditpoker

Ace2007 wrote: »

lets take this game for an example - suppose you sit in with your 100, and then jay gets his entire stack in with K high against AKQ10J's bottow pair - now Jay is down 200 quid and mark has 400.

if Jay wants to rebuy - can he only buy in for 200? if so its going to be hard for him to get his money back,

then you have Lloyd who plays fairly tight - if he sits there half the nite and finally picks up a hand and gets it all in ~ 200 and mark calls him with a 2 high flush, you'll end up with the possible situation that mark could now around 600 quid, jay has bluffed off another 200 - so is now down 400, and Llyod can only rebuy back for 200.

so the table could be like this now:

Blinds: $1-$2 NL capped at $200[/B]
Seat 1: Jayminator, $200 ( -$400)
Seat 2: BCB, $275
Seat 3: Seat Open, do you take this if you have $100? ( -$100)
Seat 4: AKQJ10, $650
Seat 5: Mick_ste, $300
Seat 6: Lloyd, $200 ( -$200)


Now how long do you think that jay is going to rebuy for 200 - he's going to get sick of it - and just leave the game and won't come back - so eventually your just going to have a table full of students playing 1/2 NL with 100 quid in front of them except maybe mark who will stay to take their money.

Reggie already said that you shouldn't be playin this game unless you rolled for it..... but think you chose to ignore it

but if jay has 1k and mark has 1k, jay will be down 1k very quickly, and might not afford the rebuy. he will lose 1k quicker in an uncapped game than he will at 200 a go. I'd reckon in terms of rake for a casino that in an uncapped game they will rake a chunk from a hand (though isnt rake capped per hand?) and then stop raking when a player leaves. effectively surely it is better to rake 10 from a player every hour for 4 hours, than to rake 30 off that player once in the first hour before he busts?