Yeah, a lot of the guys seem to do good they plunk down $100 a week and will leave if they busto once and they seem pretty comfortable with that even if they are losing 3 out of 4 weeks or 4 out of 5. I'm not too worried about them.

It's the 4-5 that will reload multiple times and be in $600-$800 and chase. Obviously they are grown men and we can't really say they can't rebuy.

One other thing I've done is several of them would borrow money each week to stay in the game. They were always 100% at paying back so I felt loaning was the right thing to do (if I bust someone and they want back in but are out of cash). But I've stopped doing that with most not because the don't pay back (they always pay back immediately next week), but to avoid them exacerbating losses.

On the stakes, I like the spread limit thoughts in this thread more than lowering stakes. We technically play 1/2 but much of the night it plays more like a 2/5 because half the players play 2/5 at the casino. I think if we lowered stakes it wouldn't change much people would still throw $15 in preflop with good hands if the blinds were .25/.50


I'm also considering changing my rebuy strategy. Because I am up huge in the game and the poker bankroll is healthy I'm normally willing to be into the game for $600-$800 if I want to and feel like I am playing good poker. There have been many weeks where I have lost some coinflips/coolers early and been down $500 bucks and then left break even/winner.

While that is fine for my situation I think it encourages other people that don't have the corresponding edge or bankroll to do the same and more often than not they don't make a come back. So thinking about just setting a loss cap of $200-300 myself and seeing if that encourages others to implement better stop losses.

Last 3 weeks were +1100, -400, +100. That average is a bit more sustainable, I have been actively trying to target a few spots to play a little worse but not grossly so (i.e. maybe get it in in 40/60 situations) to ship some money to a few key donators and that's been helping.


Did have 2 players last week skip to go play elsewhere because they are regular 1/2 winners outside and breakeven 2/5 players and they both said they are taking a month off because they feel they can't beat our game

I probably wasn't clear on this but there are a fair number of players who I would consider at best 'poker' friends and have no issue taking as much money from them as they want to put on the table each week.

I have been toying with the idea of playing say 50% of the table with my A game and the 50% I am more worried about play them a little softer or passively. That feels a little competitively unethical though...

One of my major concerns with 'playing down' to their level, is that they don't learn a lesson. If they aren't 'punished' for making big mistakes, they are more likely to continue to make them. You aren't doing them any favors for the next game(s) they may move on to play in.

Yeah no, most live players don't learn regardless. They just keep limping, calling raises and putting me on AK when they have a small pair and calling triple barrels. They just can't help themselves so teaching them here isn't going to work unless you actually sit down and teach them.

I suppose I have to agree. There are a few waaaaaaaaaaaay toooo looooose players in our home game. They are passive as well. One was invited to a high stakes game, a great networking opportunity, but well above his skill level and bankroll. Another buddy and I spent a good portion of time talking to him away from the game and were brutally honest. He ended up sitting for a short session once, and was lucky enough to double up with a big pocket pair, playing short against some whales. Cashed out a small profit. Changes in life/work, he hasn't returned.

He did express interest in meeting us at the casino. Sat and played a loose passive game (UGH). IIRC, he finished that session doubling up after calling bets on 4 streets with KK against a bad LAG that didn't notice he failed to fold on the flop like he usually does. He acknowledged that his game isn't suited to the casino, and swore that he would play tighter for higher stakes.

I'm not sure what he learned... but you are right, it wasn't from getting punished for his bad habits in the home game.

Bad players NEVER improve...at least that is my experience. I've played in home games my whole life, and tried to teach my friends...simple things like, in PLO8, you need to play for 3/4 or scoop, especially heads up. But people will stack off on a flop of 256 with middle set!

Plus, if you do play soft against these players, 90% of the time they stack off to another player on the next hand! You may as well get the chips yourself.

Speaking from experience in a home game running for 10 odd years now, the thing that probably has the most effect aside from limiting buy-ins (like Dr. Strange suggested) is having a set time for when the game ends. This by far is a life saver. Game normally runs for about 5 hours give or take, and the send time is set in advance, no exceptions. Players who are stuck are always aware of the end time and if it's nearing the end will give up and go home.
Remember that if you have an equity edge, the longer you play the higher chances that equity edge has a chance to show. By limiting the playing time you pause the game at random when some of the bad players may be up a lot, and froce them to go home and not lose it all back.

Don't let games break up "naturally" as that will typically happen when the worse players are broke.

Good point, yeah. More than anything, the one thing that seems to ruin a good night for a generally losing player is continuing to play with the winnings all night. Not only does it give the better players' edge more time to show, but losing players tend to make worse decisions simply because they're ahead, and they have less of a sense of how to play with deep stacks.

Still think that the lower the stakes ( losers losses) the less any of this matters. Lanyi has a reasonable approach with the shorter duration and regular end times. We usually start by 7 PM and close out somewhere between 11:30 and midnight. Maybe that helps us stay vibrant as a group besides our lower stakes. Never considered that before.

Thanks Lanyi!

Totally agree, when we have a big losing overall player who has a great/lucky night, but then donks it all off at the end is way worse then them just losing a buy-in. Going from $200 to $900 to $0 I think is more of a beat down for a lot of players.

Even though I'm usually on the good end of the end of nice mistakes, I think it's much better to have the fixed end time that is earlier than the point super terrible end of night gambles happen. Let the game break with 4 winners and 4 losers, vs. 1 huge winner, 1 small winner, and a bunch of broke folks.

I could never play down to someone else. That's just me though.

Also if it ever becomes apparent that you are playing soft against someone it would look real bad.

Well I tried unsuccessfully. Last session with this group got to the river with one of the perpetual donators. Part of it was a player had a very frank conversation about how there is a lot of discussion between key players behind my back about not inviting me to the 'surrounding' games that often run due to how I have been crushing bankrolls.


I had a big hand in a bloated pot, but was positive that villain rivered a 2 outer for the nuts.


I actually bleh intentionally called just to pay the guy off the extra $100 bucks on the river and make sure he had a nice winning week and got the best of me in a big hand. I was up 1k already and it seemed like the right thing to do to let him 'outplay' me on the river to double him up.


Seemed right, but felt bad about if after. And even worse one of the other solid players called me out in private afterwards... "I know what you did to pay him off, you never make that call in that spot to any other player"....


Yuck yuck yuck, back to the drawing board.

Well if people notice you're losing on purpose in that game they are still going to uninvite you in other games because they know you will still crush them if you try. In this case you probably just should have folded. There are better spots where you can dump some money that are not obvious.

If that doesn't work then it depends on your position what to do. You have the same exposure as everyone else and right to play the game so if it was me I would just play my normal game and if they object crush them till the game dies. Not your fault they suck at poker and refuse to learn right? Alternative would be to just quit playing.

I'm still trying to figure out how the guy hit a two outer for the nuts and you would have generally folded. The only two outer to the nuts I can think of is an open ended straight flush draw when you already had a bigger flush. Seems like no one would expect you to fold to an unexpected straight flush.

Riveted a higher full house on the river with an overpair. It was clear as day lol, we have played a lot together.

I thought that could have been what you meant, but a full house made with a pocket pair is never the nuts.