I'd be interested in hearing if anybody has had success moving home (unraked) games to the mid stakes (20/40 limit, 5/10 NL/PL) or having smaller stakes games play nearly as big.

A few things I've seen work:

Introducing kill pots.
Introducing a Mississippi straddle.
Introducing unusual games (e.g., double flop games with spread limit betting that build very large pots)

To be clear, I am not talking about finding these games to play in, or getting people to play at levels they can't afford, or doing things that might break up the game.

I think, but cannot claim with certainty, that home games of smaller size have a limited range that they can roam within. The game attracts people because of its original size and, if it moves too far one way or another, those people are lost and you risk killing the game.

If you want to play bigger, why not organize separate home game nights and have a different invitation list?

How big does your group play now, btw? If, as I'm assuming, you're looking to make a big change in your current group's range... why are you doing so, other than to (I assume) take advantage of them for bigger stakes?

Another consideration- The levels you are talking about bring a whole different level of concern, regarding security. Not knowing your circumstances and setup.... is that something you want to worry about?

Thanks for the feedback.
Yes.

Nothing wrong with that, but it will draw a different player pool.

Higher stakes = More fun (within reason). I soft play bad players; it's not about extracting max $. I generally don't enjoy the social aspect with mid-stakes regs. I also generally get bored playing 1/2.

This leads to how to raise stakes in a way that doesn't cause the same level of discomfort many of us feel when stepping up in stakes in a card room environment.
I appreciate you're raising a valid concern, but this is kind of a tangent I'd just as soon not get into. Security measures certainly apply to any private game where there's 5 figures in the room. It's super-important but OT.

Interesting.... but okay, we'll go with it.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're trying to raise your two-buck NL game to a 5x larger game?

First, I would NOT categorize 5/10 PL or 20/40 limit as "mid-stakes" for a home game. but, I probably don't live in the right home... or, I'm just a wussy.

Secondly, why are higher stakes something you consider "more fun"? And, would your players truly consider it so, in the same manner? My experiences with betting levels is that they can't much more than 2x-3x, or you lose the players that you started with. You may be able to replace the list, but I'm not getting the impression that you're aiming to change your invitation list.

The last sentence confused me. Does that mean you're looking for something (social) that you can't find at the B&M games of those limits? Or, are you saying you don't want the social aspect?

No, sorry if I was unclear. This game plays larger than that currently, due to a combination of factors in the OP, along with some others that I'm curious if others have seen.

Right, that's why I included specific numbers; it's different for different people. I think in casino terms those are generally considered mid to mid-high. They are certainly high for me personally.

But anybody who has seen a game move up to that level and posts here likely remembered how it came about.
I am not sure if you're just seeing how many discussions we can have besides the one I requested Let's assume for the sake of discussion that some players find moving down in stakes duller and up in stakes more exciting.
Let's say 3x is great. How have you seen it done?
I'd prefer to combine the stakes of the casino with social aspect of laid back home game players I like personally. There are ways to do this, but this one aspect (raising stakes) is tricky.

There are 2 games that generate much larger pots than we usually see.

First - Omaha 3-2-1 H/L. Preflop action is normal, 3 flops dealt out (burn, flop 3cards,flop another 3, flop another3). Bet. 2 Turns (burn, turn 1, turn 1). Bet. Deal 1 river (burn, river 1 card). Play any combination of 2 cards in your hand, along with any 3 cards from 1 flop, 1 turn and the river. Of course, you can play different cards for hi and low.

There is a ton of action, as many people hit some part of a flop, have some kind of draw to the nuts, and away we go. Downside... sorting pots and explaining to some why A2 didn't make the nut low may take a while. Of course, if they don't get that, I want to play low games with them all night...


2nd game. Split the middle. Originally a greek named game (Mirastiko, sp?). 5 cards to each player (must use 2 for final hand). Can be one or multiple boards. Boards are dealt out face down, 4 for each board across, with a single (split) card in the middle. Like Big Omaha, you play 2 from your hand, and 3 from any single board (middle card plays on all boards if there are multiple). First card on each board is exposed. Bet. Second card is exposed. Bet. Middle/Money card is exposed. The card of the same suit and one rank lower than the M/M card wins 1/2 the pot (*). Bet. Expose 4th board card. Bet. Expose 5th card. Bet.

Note:
A) We limit bets to 10BB until the 5th card is exposed. Then the limit is 40BB. Our custom has been to bet 2BB on the first, and check the 2nd, to see the middle. Occasionally there is a bet on the 2nd card.
B) In order to use the middle card, it must be played as part of your hand. If you have AA and the middle, and use the AA for high, then you can't play the middle.
C) We usually play the middle 'progressive'. If nobody has the exact split, then it goes to next lower, down to the deuce. If the middle is a deuce, then it goes up to the A. A is high only for middle card consideration, although it can be used to make a wheel.
D) With progressive, ff a player A has the highest hand, with the middle card, it's good for a scoop. If player A could have the highest hand, but can't use the middle, and Player B would win high if A played middle, but Player C would win middle if A played high... then A must play high. A common sense clause kicks in, if A can scoop, then they play cards allowing them to scoop. Common sense clause kicks in if A would get quartered playing high, but would take 1/2 playing middle (A plays middle).


These games are called regularly by a couple of players, and tend to get called by stuck players hoping to make a big score. Pots are larger (seems like playing higher stakes).

Most PLO h/l games play higher then equivalent blinds @ NLH.


Our group has played with various straddles at times. Almost any straddle is allowed, until it confuses people and then it stops. As a home game it's passive and there are a lot of limped family pots. Much more social than a casino, everyone wants to see a cheap flop, chase and make hero calls or big laydowns, or some such thing that they saw on tv.

Let me start by echoing Lottery Larry. It is a bad idea to jack up the stakes in a home game, it will break the game. While it might be for 'fun' for the winning player(s) to jack up the stakes, it isn't fun to lose more money, faster.

In my experience raising the stakes does two things that damage the game. First, the losers start to lose bigger and they make adjustments that further cripple their game which leads to even bigger losses. Second, the losers figure out they are losing and often the wife figures it out too. (Let me also say that the wives talk to each other and that this can become a bad thing very quickly).

If there is an interest in a bigger game (or in games that play bigger), set up a different game and test the waters. Don't risk your lower stakes games trying to clean out the weaker players faster.

DrStrange

Why dont you try ADDING antes by all players who arent in the blinds? For example: If the game is $1-2, make it a $2-2 with a $.50 ante. Or if the game is $2-5, make it a $5-5 with a $1 ante

This would do a few things. First, it would make the game play a lot bigger without players feeling like they are playing in a significantly bigger game. Secondly, it would stimulate more action in the form of more multi-way pots, since more players would see flops given that they have money committed preflop each hand.

It WOULD slow the game down a bit until players get used to putting their ante in each hand without being prompted. And of course players would go broke more quickly...but thats unavoidable.

I've been considering this for a while in my own games. If you do implement it, I'm greatly interested in how it works out. Give us a full report!

FYP

Chicago, if you're looking to jump up by factors of X, I think you have to consider the risks to the game.

If you want to ease up to a little higher level and see if the game resets.....
what about a night where you just set higher stakes? See who comes and how it's received?

I didnt want to include a complete list in my OP, but introducing antes works.

Chicago, if you have players who want to play higher stakes, why not just raise the blinds? What are the challenges of this, in your opinion or experience? Just curious why you feel you need to add these other frills instead.

The reason I ask, I have found the things in your list are often put in place to get players who are not as knowledgeable to play larger than they think they are playing. But maybe there are other reasons.

When stakes are raised this way, blinds are typically doubled, which can produce irrational anxiety outside of very low limits. It happens even if the new stakes aren't particularly meaningful to the participants. I think this is a pretty well-established phenomenon.
To create intermediate steps that don't just double the blinds and create irrational anxiety.
There are. That said, that bolded part there honestly gives me a little pause. Good players often get less knowledgeable players to play in bigger pots than they intend to via bet sizing. The very nature of the game is designed to lead players to believe they are better than they are due to fish protection, which greatly increases their long term losses. Even very experienced players underestimate the swings and overestimate their EV. A completely transparent game would allocate dollars to each player at the end of each session based on how well he played. Bad players would quickly quit, and nobody would play. The nature of gambling is diabolical that way.

So part of me reads that bolded part and thinks, "We're both talking about a poker game here, right?"

I fully understand that one could use such tactics in a "black hat" sort of way, tricking people into wading into deeper water than they should be swimming in. That's not my intention. However, if it were, I think the nature of the game is much scarier in that regard all by itself, so this shouldn't really be a reason to say, "Well, this looks like it could set some poor players up for bigger losses than they expect."

And to moi, that quote might be re-phrased "Are we talking about a home poker game here?"


So, what IS your intention, other than to play at higher stakes because you're bored? Are you expecting to make more per hour, or less, by doing so? I know your OP stated:

"or getting people to play at levels they can't afford, or doing things that might break up the game"

.... but you are risking both of those things.

If none of your players have been chomping at the bit to move the stakes up, can you see how this might come across as a bit... nefarious? If it's not (nefarious = best for you, not for others, in context of this home game), why do you think that your players are ready to afford a jump in stakes... whether you ease it up slowly, or jump it?


You asked earlier if I had examples of "Let's say 3x is great. How have you seen it done?" escalations. I haven't. Instead, it's wiped out the group list (replacing it with a much smaller invite list, willing to handle the higher stakes) or driven players away. Sorry I can't be helpful in the manner that you wanted.

Yeah, getting the fish to part with the max without knowing fully what they are getting into is not what you wrote on your OP. Building max pots is something raked games like to do. If you are interested in maintaining the game you have some conflicting goals.

....maybe. Perhaps the group is ready to move up in stakes, and ChicagoT won't lose players.

It's a risk, in my experience. You have to weigh which is more important to you, then plan for fallout accordingly.