I disagree with that but if we stipulate that its true, there's no difference between $950 and $1000 in a $1000 max game.

Ive also never seen any proof that playing a $1000 stack is any higher EV than $700 or whatever number you want to pick. There are hands, very few and far between in most games, where you may make an extra $200 by having a full stack but there are also hands where you will lose an extra $200.

More importantly, there are hands where a guy who started with $500 may get a $300 turn all in called where a guy who started with $1000 will get a fold there (and makes $300 less) because villain knows there could be another $500 bet coming on the river. Obviously you can use that same affect to get folds when youre bluffing, but how often are we bluff shoving $500+ on the river after bluffing the turn? Very rarely.

The point is there is no way to measure whether or not, having an extra 100 or 200 makes any difference in win rate.....and the extra $25 people keep topping off absolutely makes no difference in win rate so why draw attention to yourself by doing it 5 times an hour?

I agree with this.

Also having tons and tons of $5 chips is better than having a stack of $25 (read what Bart says about it)

Also backpacks are the worst in poker

You're bad for the game.

Seriously though, most things winning players do to increase their expectation is not "good for the game". If I can do things to make the game better without sacrificing expectation, (like side bets, mandatory straddles, etc.) that's all well and good but I'm not going to avoid topping up under the dubious assumption doing so suddenly marks me as a grinder when I'm pretty much already marked as a white kid who looks in his lower 20s who carries a seat cushion, playing 2/5+. We can't all disguise ourselves as OMCs lol...

Also... people generally don't notice when you top up if use normal size chips (pulling out a 1k chip in a 2/5 calls attention obviously) versus cash. Some guy busts and pulls out 10 100 dollar bills people see that. But I raise 25 pre fire a 25 c bet x/f the turn and quietly add a couple greens after? Nobody notices, and if they do I don't think their play is going to change much (probably at all) based on whether I have 950 or 1000.

Bottom line, if you are better than the other deep stacks at the table you lose money by not covering them.

Adding a couple greens is one thing. Adding a couple greens means you dropped down to $925-$950 before adding on which is what I suggested. I'm talking about the guys who literally add on a green every single time they drop to $975. Those guys will be adding on 2-3 times as often and its very noticeable.

You are completely wrong. You always want to be as deep-stacked as possible, as that allows you more "play". If you have domination in big hands such as AA against KK, middle-set over bottom-set, or flush over flush, you want the full double up. Also, if you want to bluff, the 300 bet on the turn with money behind is more worrisome than a 300 all-in on the turn. The better you are at poker the more streets you want to play with maximum money behind. This is why the bigger games are uncapped.

You also save money when you get KK vs AA, flush over flush, set over set, etc., and as those should happen at same frequency (if you go broke everytime), those pot shouldnt change you WR...it seems pretty obv.

I'm not saying youre not right, but your argument is inapplicable

The whole idea of covering is that it makes sense if we are better than our V's . Obviously if we go broke every time we get in a raising war pre with KK and are several hundred BBs deep, we are not better than our Vs and should not be looking to cover them.

This is a silly argument.

Yea but the argument is if it’s bad for the game or not. It may not seem bad to the 6 other regfish doing it, but the 1 or 2 whales are gonna either feel uncomfortable or just leave.

Sacrificing a couple dollars of EV in the off chance you cooler any other reg with a full stack for the sake of keeping a whale or super passive fish bleeding their stack out (usually 30-40 bbs at a time) happy and in the game is more important.

If you don’t get that idk what to tell you.

I add 100 cash money when I get below the 100 mark (-20bb in my game usually). And I always make a spectacle about it, screaming “checks” to the chip runner, or rummaging around my pocket pretending my wallets empty til I pull out a 100 from my other pocket.

Go to the game with 300 or 400 in red play a couple hands then add my 1-200.

Little things like this add up to a better environment for fun players and bad regs. The guy adding $17 in chips after whiffing a raise or whatever is a nit whose getting no action from me.

Glgl

Edit to add - this only applies to 2/5 (500+ but in) and up imo. I don’t think anyone notices or really cares in smaller games

No, the argument that it doesn't make a difference in winrate is silly. The argument about the effect on the table dynamics is legit.

FWIW, In 100BB max BI games, I buy a few greens for my pocket and top up if I get down below about 90BBs. I don't think it hurts the game, but I'm not obsessive about it, and I do so quietly. Still, especially in 1/3, greens are a bit rare, so I'm sure anyone paying close attention notices. It doesn't seem to effect anyone too much, but I could see ways of doing it that could look predatory. Nowhere near as much as other behaviors though, imo. Frankly, I think adding on with cash is much more obvious and likely to be interpreted poorly.

In my current games, buy in is capped at 167 BBs or 3/4 of the big stack (whichever is bigger), so really no one notices or cares. I almost always BI at 100 BBs and add on if the game conditions seem good for it. Being able to do that without drawing attention to myself is, I believe, valuable.

I also top up from my pocket discreetly and have never had a single comment about adding ~5-10bb's. Rec players don't notice these things generally, and if they do, they don't care. Reg's are more likely to notice it but they're regs so who cares? Easier to add chips from your pocket than to top up with cash at the table.

There’s a fine line where that becomes nitty and gets you in my (probably the whale whose pissed idk we’ll see) no action camp. i would probably say 10-12.5 bbs is that line.

Not entirely the same issue as topping off $25 at a time, but tables that allow you to buy from the dealer are great for the game. Very often I will see someone toss a $100 to the dealer to top off, and 2-3 more people follow suit. Monkey see monkey do.

Sadly this structure is a dying breed in most card rooms.

IMO, it likely reduces your hands-dealt-per-hour by 10%, which thus reduces your winrate by about 10% per hour. Our room used to have chip runners who did all the money-to-chip transactions and the dealers simply kept their head down and dealt. But now all of the transactions are being done by the dealers (who also have to deal with the floor coming by every so often to exchange the cash) which greatly cuts into hands / hour.

Git'shorribleforthegame,imoG

agree with this 100%

Not for buy ins, just for top offs.

There’s no way it’s 10% unless the dealers are awful. I could get behind 5%. But it is a good point. Does stack depth + people more casual about losing / topping off out-weigh a 5% reduction in wr.

For top offs its no issue. The transaction takes about 10 sec which is obv negligible.

The issue in my room where you can buy from the dealer is any transaction over $200 needs a floor to confirm.

I cannot tell you how many times I've had to wait 1-2 minutes for a floor to come over because the room was busy. This is the nut low.

(P.S. $100 bills play in this room which is even more infuriating)

I figured that if my room averaged 30 hands an hour (fair?), but then the dealer had to deal with money transactions, this could easily take up 3 hands per hour of his time (fair?), which is 10%.

I haven't actually tracked, but it would be an interesting stat, imo. In a game of thin edges, I think it's far more devastating than people realize.

GguesstimatingG

SHRT implemented the "cant buy chips at table" thing about a year ago. For about a month it worked pretty smoothly as there were lots of runners and dealers could yell for chips. For some reason they can only press a button now and it typically takes about 5 minutes to get the chips, though I've seen it vary from less than 1 to more than 10.

The effect is really bad on recs who aren't familiar with the room, i.e. typically the worst recs. Numerous times I've seen somebody bust and try to rebuy, miss their blinds while waiting, then have to post to get back in. This universally pisses them off and I've even seen times the players arguing with floor about the rule which slows the game down, and a couple times where players actually left because they couldn't immediately get back in.

Slow games are also bad but it was pretty rare that buying from the table would take that long, as they used to let you buy chips from other players so we could speed things up if the dealer didn't have a full well.

I'd estimate we get about 1 more hand per hour now. I don't think it's worth it.

My room started allowing your first buy in at the table about a month or so ago. THIS is horrible. It slows the game down every time a new player comes in. Some clowns even buy in for $500-$1000 with $20 bills which really slows the game down.

The dealers have to get fills way more often now which slows the game down 2 more times when they count out the money for the chip runner (which is a dealer on break since they laid off all the chip runners a while back) and again when they chips come back and the dealer has to count them.

I have no idea why a room would implement a new policy that costs them money. They fixed something that wasnt broken. Nobody was complaining about going to the cage for the first buy in.

Yes this is exactly what I am talking about. I think it’s more serious than people realize.

People even come back less often as you mentioned also. I’m sure of this...I’ve seen it enough to where I’d almost call it common. This is obviously a huge negative because a guy you just stacked who is trying to rebuy is worth more to the table than an extra 2-3 hands / hour.

I think it comes down to staff. If you have great dealers it won’t slow the game down. If you have lots of runners then fine do that.

Most casinos have neither.

Keep plenty of chips in your pocket and sell to people who bust so they don’t have to miss a hand as you wait for the chip runner.

This is what I always do and keeps the game going quickly and makes it so recs never have to miss a hand.

More hands per hour causes everyone else to play tighter which hurts your bb/100. You can't say bb/hr is linearly tied to hands per hour.

If people are playing tighter you will get more hands per hour because each hand takes less time, but how in the world can more hands per hour make people play tighter?

Who cares? Are you playing -EV hands against people in your "action camp?" Are you folding +EV hands against people in your "no action camp?"

I have a couple people who have singled me out for being a nit, which I certainly am by their standards. They are some of the most profitable and easiest players for me to play against. One player auto-folds top pair to a single flop bet from me. The same guy snap folded to a squeeze pre-flop and encouraged everyone else to do so, saying I only play aces. I won > $100 uncontested with some suited rags.