Quote:
Originally Posted by DrStrange
It seems to me that the original poster is missing the point. He is bleeding players because the cost of playing and losing is greater than the entertainment from the game.
The "let's boil the suckers slower" plan of cutting the blinds but then applying a mandatory straddle isn't likely to help matters. It seems more likely to burn bridges than make the game more sustainable.
If the goal is to keep the game running with mostly the current invite list, the best place to look for adjustments is in the buy-in limits not the blinds.
Cutting the blinds to $0.10 / $0.25 or even $0.05 / $0.10 isn't going to change things that much. The typical passive / loose / sticky player is going to call a preflop raise to $1.75 in a 25/50 game and also in a 10/25 game or even a $0.05/$0.10 game.
However, cutting the max buy in from $100 to $20 will make a huge difference. The stacks will be shorter, which protects the weaker player. The weaker player has built in limits to how fast he/she can be bled broke. And perhaps most important, when the weaker player gets lucky he/she isn't as easily busted because the better players can't buy in with enough money to bust the weaker player in one hand. If it seems like the bad players rarely or never go home a winner, then the host has a problem that needs to be resolved.
Yes, yes I know this sort of thing is not going to make the better players happy. They are perfectly aware this is a zero sum situation - things that benefit the weaker players tend to disadvantage the better players. The health of the game is the host's responsibility and that means taking a longer term view rather than maximizing the immediate financial gain.
As I see it the host has four general options: a) close up the game, play in raked games / on-line / casinos b) learn to play very short handed with only the "good" players c) restructure the game in favor of the weaker players or d) go find a different group of players. If you are going to pick option "c", then make that choice in good faith. Otherwise, spend your efforts recruiting newer players with deeper pockets / higher pain thresholds.
DrStrange
I'm not sure why you think that I'm attempting to "Bleed suckers" but that's far from my intention. I'm not the usual host of our .25/.50 game, merely a player in it. I think there are a number of reasons why we are losing players, but the cost and mounting losses, I think is far down the list, a general lack of interest in poker in general, as well as people getting older and moving onto other things such as family obligations, etc...
My goal for this is simply to try and merge two groups of like-minded poker friends, but to make the game enjoyable for everyone. This other group is likely far from suckers, they play somewhat regularly but play tournaments and sit-n-goes. Their losses are usually limited by that, whereas cash they are going to be way more exposed to a cooler, or losing more than they want to. I am sure everyone can afford to lose a hundred dollars, but wanting to lose that much at a poker game may be different for everyone. I'm basically trying to limit the risk.
I've asked a couple of the newer players what they think, and most were on board to simply join the 0.25/0.50 game as is, however, I think that might be a mistake for them, as they may not enjoy it as much as they would with a smaller game.
I did think about just leaving the blinds, but having people buy-in shorter, but our usual game isn't usually deep-stacked until later in the evening. Usually with .25/.50 we play a 40 CAP on buy in, so only 80 BBs deep, and there is about half of us who straddle every round, which takes it to 40 half the time, so I think that's not a major concern.
My biggest issue like I said is making sure these guys enjoy it enough to potentially come back. I wouldn't care if the usual game switched stakes full-time, I'd just rather see it able to run regularly rather than having to cancel it due to lack of interest.