[beekeeper]

This is very helpful and interesting.

Thanks, everyone, for the responses.

[jojobinks]

i think i sorta disagree with the idea that people will come in and dust off 10 buyins each week just because.

imo, this is pretty self-regulating, b/c people like to win, or at least lose little enough so that they can convince themselves they just run bad.

i play a .25/.5 game, and some players regularly open for 3.50. if they regularly opened for $5 that'd be cool with me too. it just makes it more right to play squeaky, and it makes it a lot easier to play profitably with your best hands.

like, sorta, for instance...online i average 5 big bets with AA, which translates to 5 dollars per AA hand in a .25/.5 game.

if the usual open is for $5, and i just move in for $50 every time it's opened and i have AA and i get no action, then i'll be making about $5 per hand with AA, which is fine. if i get action...ooh baby. and you don't have to restrict this move to AA. do it with JJ+, AK, AQ, et cetera depending on how loose the game plays. there'll be some variance involved but it simplifies things and should be profitable.

basically, these huge opens or crazy opponents don't hurt the game. it's like when guys talk about moving up levels so they can play better opponents that'll respect their raises...they think that'll make the games easier for them but they're WRONG! in any home game, the crazies will play crazy, the players that are interested in winning will adjust appropriately, yadda yadda yadda.

my point: don't worry about setting up the structure to rein in the crazies...it's a fruitless venture. instead, let them adjust as they learn.

if the concern, on the other hand, is having players basically go busto, losing 10 buyins over 5 weeks and then quitting, well yeah. this is the common wisdom reasoning for why nlhe ring didn't exist in casinos until the poker boom. the bad players lose more quickly in big bet games, then stop playing. if that's the concern, that's valid. in that case, edumacating the fish is a good idea, or mixing nlhe in with limit games, or in extreme cases where the player pool is short, trying nlhe out and then bailing back to limit right away.

[beekeeper]

Originally Posted by jojobinks

if the concern, on the other hand, is having players basically go busto, losing 10 buyins over 5 weeks and then quitting, well yeah. this is the common wisdom reasoning for why nlhe ring didn't exist in casinos until the poker boom. the bad players lose more quickly in big bet games, then stop playing. if that's the concern, that's valid. in that case, edumacating the fish is a good idea, or mixing nlhe in with limit games, or in extreme cases where the player pool is short, trying nlhe out and then bailing back to limit right away.

This is my biggest concern. I know that about half the players just want to play for fun and keep the stakes on the low end so they can play all night for what they brought. There's about 3 players who really want to make money and gamble it up. It's like oil and water...they don't mix. I prefer the company of the nongambly players, but I can't really uninvite the others who want to raise every pot to get others to fold. So, I'm trying to find the ideal limits to work for all.

[TX_kiwi]

Originally Posted by beekeeper

This is my biggest concern. I know that about half the players just want to play for fun and keep the stakes on the low end so they can play all night for what they brought.

That is also our cash game intent (just playing for fun). Our cash game follows on from our tourney and only the real poker addicts stay on for the cash game.

We run .25/.50 with max $20 buy-in with rebuys at any time to take a stack back up to $20 max. This seems to work well for our aim of a social game. About half our players buy in for less (usually $10 although sometimes as low as $5). Most pre-flop play is less than $2-$3 in the pot. Most rakes are below $7 total. However, when two hands clash then we see all-in's...There have been very few re-buys, most tend to stay out after being felted.

I think the most that any one player has won in a single night was about $50 up.

The emphasis is more on social playing rather than winning money.

[abby99]

Originally Posted by beekeeper

This is my biggest concern. I know that about half the players just want to play for fun and keep the stakes on the low end so they can play all night for what they brought. There's about 3 players who really want to make money and gamble it up. It's like oil and water...they don't mix. I prefer the company of the nongambly players, but I can't really uninvite the others who want to raise every pot to get others to fold. So, I'm trying to find the ideal limits to work for all.

This sounds familiar. I think it's very difficult to sustain a game with such different types of players, meaning people who have such opposing reasons for playing. I recall a local game where most of the players wanted to play a social game for very small stakes, just for the fun of itk, with $5 or $10 buy-ins to make it interesting. Two guys, who were used to playing for higher stakes, were constantly overbetting pots in order to push people off hands, or as one of them put it, to force the others to make difficult decisions for their entire stacks. Everybody else got tired of playing with them, and the group disbanded. The game would probably still be going if somebody had had the courage to uninvite the two who really belonged in a different game.

I wish that I had something constructive to offer. Kudos to you for seeking a solution that will make the game a better experience for everybody involved. Give spread-limit a try, but realize that with three raises on every street the pots can still become huge relative to the blinds. Good luck!

[NoFear]

After all, you can make everyone happy..

[KingZilla]

Originally Posted by TX_kiwi

That is also our cash game intent (just playing for fun). Our cash game follows on from our tourney and only the real poker addicts stay on for the cash game.

We run .25/.50 with max $20 buy-in with rebuys at any time to take a stack back up to $20 max. This seems to work well for our aim of a social game. About half our players buy in for less (usually $10 although sometimes as low as $5). Most pre-flop play is less than $2-$3 in the pot. Most rakes are below $7 total. However, when two hands clash then we see all-in's...There have been very few re-buys, most tend to stay out after being felted.

I think the most that any one player has won in a single night was about $50 up.

The emphasis is more on social playing rather than winning money.

I hosted a .25/.50 NL game last night (and several in the past). My games ran identical to what you posted. We are civilized players here, with a 3x-4x bb bet pre-flop being the max. No one betting higher would get any action.
I agree with Kiwi's sentiments totally. Social game among friends. If I had people getting wild with bets in this situation, I'd switch to structured betting.

[gaber6]

I'm trying to start cash games at my place, because with 5-6 people tourneys, the first two out get bored quick and/or get tired of dealing.

I played heads-up .05-.10 NL with a friend for $5 for about 2 hours last weekend, and we ended up even. I have a game next weekend that's $20 buy-in and .05-.10 NL, so we'll see if more than 3 people show up. Either way, I'm ready to re-buy even with only two other players.

I haven't found a crowd that's willing to drop $60 once a week here in Arizona on a .25-.50 game. I used to do that all the time in California, and I managed to pay my bills still.

[checkm8r]

What about pot limit? I think PL games play the best, but it does tend to get old counting the pots and correcting the bets.

[Figurado]

I was thinking like the last post...our games are usually pot limit. And it is still big bet poker, just with more play. We play $.25/.50 and often have a few players buying in over $100. It allows you to play a "smaller" game while keeping people from making the huge bets common to smaller games.

The truth is if you play over 1/2 NL then anything less than what you normally play seems small. Lots of normal raises seem enticing to mess around with. I find pot limit fixes this in our home games.

And after a little bit, no one struggles with bets and pot counting.

For small games my suggestion is always pot limit (playing a non-mixed limit game with friends is torture).