Poker: Micro-Limit Live Home Games

[albionmoonlight]

I used to play a poker game about once a month down here that ended up petering out. Generally, we played 3 $20 buy-in NL Tournaments, drank a lot of beer, and the top 2 guys got the pot (with like #1 getting 2/3 or something and #2 getting 1/3). There were about 6-8 of us who played. It was fun.

Anyway, my brother-in-law is moving into town, and he is a pretty big poker guy, so I am thinking of getting some sort of home game started again with the desirable remnants of the old game and some new blood.

One of the problems that I have run into, however, is that, thanks to Mrs. A., lots of my friends are grad students with no money. So some of the people to whom I was mentioning this were talking about wanting to set a $5 buy-in limit.

Now, I have no problem with someone setting a limit on how much they want to bet. I can afford to play for $20-$50 with no sweat. Some people can afford to play for $200-$500 with so sweat. And some can afford to play for $5 no sweat. That's OK with me.

My question to you guys--what is the best way to structure something like this? It seems like a buy-in over $5 may push some people out. On the other hand, a buy-in that low will probably cause some people to play really loose ("all-in. It's only $5. What do I care?")

I'm really just trying to have a guys night with some cards and some beer. Is it more a matter of picking the right personalities, or does the amount of money matter? Should I just commit to a limit (either higher or lower) and just not invite the people who won't be comfortable with that limit?

Anyone run into something like this before? Any advice/insight is appreciated.

[QuikSand]

My home game dissolved over these issues, basically. We had played occasionally for years with a $20 buy-in and the occasional reload.

More or less when the poker boom started, a few of us... umm... moved up in weight class a bit. Others, despite being very comfortable financially overall, never got past the notion of losing twenty bucks. The $20 game just didn't work after that -- for those who now play serious poker, dropping back to play penny-ante stuff is just grating. Mrs Q and I, both of us former happy participants in the old game, now can't stand to play in it when it is (infrequently) called and make up excuses not to go. I, personally, would rather do something else for social hour with the same people than play poker for meaningless stakes.

You're in a tough spot. Our group tried a compromise for a while to appeal to everyone -- cheap dealer's choice for a couple hours, followed by a no-limit mini-tournament at the end for those inclined to stick around. Wasn't a bad compromise, but if there's a wide gulf between the preferred stakes, it's not easy to keep it together.

[Pumpy Tudors]

In my experience, as long as people enjoy the game and the atmosphere, it won't matter if the buy-in is "too low" for them. I worked with a guy who would invite a few guys from the office over on Thursday nights, and we'd buy into the game for $10 each. This was chump change to some of the guys there (one of them was the GM of the company, after all), but we just liked playing. The $10 was low enough to get some of our inexperienced co-workers to give it a shot, and I guess it was high enough to be at least a little meaningful.

If you want to play a $5 game, that'd be great. It sounds like you know people who'd be interested in that, so start there. Believe me, if there are other people who think $5 is too small, they won't even show up. It's not worth their time. I say to start with $5, and then if you all decide to bump it up to $10 or $20 later on, you can do that. Start with something that'll get the party rolling, though, and you can adjust it after that.

[Pumpy Tudors]

I guess I'd also like to add that the $10 game worked for me because it was 80% people from the same office. The bragging rights were worth more than the $50 or $60 that the winner would bring home. The games were on Thursdays, and we were so busy talking trash on Friday that we didn't get very much work done. :)

[QuikSand]

It's not a function of people's overall budget, in my experience, but rather a function of their gambling budget.

All the people who previously enjoyed playing in my $20 game were pretty well off professionals, who certainly could *afford* to gamble for much bigger stakes, if you looked honestly at their financial situation, myself included. We all played for $20 or $40 and had fun doing it.

It was only once some of us started really gambling for higher stakes, and getting used to having much bigger money in play with poker, that the game started to dissolve. It wasn't a function of us suddenly having a totally different financial situation, but rather a change in our attitudes about risk-taking and gambling capital. It's rather hard to explain until it happens to you, but it's not at all about just becoming wealthier.


I agree with Pumpy's notion, though -- offer up a game at allevel you'd be willing to play, and see what you can attract. Straight-up BALLERZ won't come, and that's fine. If, over time, the game gets more serious and you up the stakes some, that's fine too.

[wade moore]

It was only once some of us started really gambling for higher stakes, and getting used to having much bigger money in play with poker, that the game started to dissolve. It wasn't a function of us suddenly having a totally different financial situation, but rather a change in our attitudes about risk-taking and gambling capital. It's rather hard to explain until it happens to you, but it's not at all about just becoming wealthier.

Isn't play style and skill level a challenge here as well? As it is I have a group where we play maybe once every few months and we have a couple of people that are just terrible and have no chance of winning - and that's with people like me who don't even play more regularly than these games..

I can't imagine playing where there are a couple of people that have 1000's of more hands under their belt... isn't it goign to cause a situation where people are hesitant to play because of skill level? In addition, don't the "advanced" players get upset at the "illogical" play of the more "beginner" players?

[Pumpy Tudors]

In addition, don't the "advanced" players get upset at the "illogical" play of the more "beginner" players?
Only the stupid advanced players get upset.

[QuikSand]

The skill level is an issue, but really I don't think it's the big one. In low-stakes home games, most people play most hands most of the time, and that's fine. At the end of the night, the guy with the luckiest cards probably wins the thirty dollars.

In my experience (personally and talking to my close friends who have also done the same thing) the issue really eventually becomes the money. If I am a regular player in a $20/40 limit cash game, and it becomes obvious to me that I might be playing five hours ion the "home game" in the longshot effort to win one big bet for my trouble... I almost can't help but think about the opportunity cost involved. It's the money, not the play, to me.

I generaly volunteer that I'd rather play board games or just watch a game or have a barbecue than play penny-ante poker. I enjoy the company of my friends, but playing a money game without meaningful money basically guts the game, and if you have invested time into really understanding and appreciating the game, it pains you to do that, in a weird way.

[wade moore]

I generaly volunteer that I'd rather play board games or just watch a game or have a barbecue than play penny-ante poker. I enjoy the company of my friends, but playing a money game without meaningful money basically guts the game, and if you have invested time into really understanding and appreciating the game, it pains you to do that, in a weird way.

Maybe this is a key point here. I think poker isn't a game for you anymore, but a financial transaction. Back when you were enjoying home games, and for people like me, it's an excuse to get together, bs, and have some fun. For me I view it as, "ok, going to the movies, getting some food and a drink, that costs $20.. or I can do this"... For you, you're looking at this as a small financial transaction compared to what you can earn on-line or whatever.

For the board games, bbq, etc. you view it the way I view poker. A diversion that is an excuse to have a little fun while BSing with your buddies. If you all of a sudden started touring in competitions for scrabble, playing with your buddies where you goof off, sometimes make up words, etc. suddenly isn't so much fun...

[Subby]

There is no real strategy at lower stakes (lower stakes being a relative term) since the stakes don't mean anything. The stakes have to mean something to bring out the richness of the game.

[Pumpy Tudors]

There is no real strategy at lower stakes (lower stakes being a relative term) since the stakes don't mean anything. The stakes have to mean something to bring out the richness of the game.
And the people at the lower stakes don't fold! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Mustang]

Have mixed buy in but, if the person with a lower buy in wins, their winnings are capped. If you have 4 people that want $20 buyins and 4 with $10, you would have a pool of $120.

Which, if you did say, 75%/25%.. if one of the $10 guys won, he would win $60 (Everyone counts as a $10 buy in so, $80 total prize pool) and if the $20 guy was 2nd, he would win $30 ($120 prize both @ 25%) with the rest being returned to the higher guys ($7.50). If both higher entry fee guys finish 1 - 2, then no one gets anything back..

[Toddzilla]

I temporarily gave up the micro-limit game my group of friends had going, since the real low limits promoted sloppy play, and with the trash talking and beer drinking, it got very old when the donks would catch a hand.

We changed the game to allow re-buys and go no-limit, and that has reigned in the game a bunch, especially after a few hours. The guys who just want to play $5 of poker can do that, others who want to spend more can do that, too. When the stacks get to $30-$50, the game tightens up. It has worked out very well.

[Chubby]

I was in a $5 buyin game in Rochester with a bunch of RIT students. It was fun because even tho some of us played poker outside the home game, the purpose of the home game was to get together, drink, trash talk and just BS. To us the $ didn't matter, it was about having a good time.

So I guess it depends on the people in your game and their expectations albion.