Never played cash games there but I have never understood why a casino puts a cap on the buy in in a no limit game, please educate me as why a cap is put on.

Is this a level?

No honest question why do some casinos like Windstar put a cap on buy-ins on no limit games? To me it seems to take away the words no limit.

Probably to even the playing field. Sort of an advantage to people with more money. I don't know that I'd want to be @ a table with a lagtard that bought in for 2K when I can only afford to buy in for 200.

I think Mason has written/commented at length about it. The general idea is that no cap games cause the bad players to lose more money faster, causing the games to dry up and the poker economy to suffer. Then the casino loses money, and the good players can't get a good game.

This can't possibly be the reason because if they were trying to even the playing field you would be allowe dto buy as many chips as the biggest stack (which I understand may be a rule in a few places).


There are two reasons for a casino to cap the buy-in.

One is to keep the players from loosing there money to fast. In poker the room makes money by keeping the games going. If you bust out the players to fast you make no more money.


Second, there are players who are afraid of people buying in for bigger stacks. the fear is unfounded..... but none the less widespread enough that in order to make players happy and get them into games you may need to cap the buy-in (i used to deal in a room where the NL game was $2-$5 with a $1k cap. I saw many players walk away because they thought that cap was too high and they believed they were at a disadvantage because they could not buy-in that much)

It's my impression that the policy where I work is set to keep the games sustainable.

Too many people going broke too quickly will kill the action for everyone.

I think this is pretty acurate. It also protects the the other games. Example:if there were no cap on the 2/5 it might kill the 5/10 or likewise if there were no cap on 1/2 it might kill the 2/5 and so on.

There is also the intidation factor of shortstacking in a deep game. I hear this concern often. It doesn't add up from a game theory perspective though, at least not until you win a few pots. At that point it does change the game. Deep stack no limit, say 300 bb+, is a very differnt game then short stack Nl

Of course it's to keep the deep pocket mega aggressive players from killing the action.

It would be pretty sick if they didn't have caps. I'd just look for really fishy $1-2 games with rich players that bought in for a lot and outplay them.

they cap the buy in so u dont lose all ur life savings in 1 hand.

The buy-in cap is to generate more drop/rake period. The house gets payed by the hand, not as a percentage of the action. If there is no buy-in cap lots of players, almost all the fish, would end up playing orders of magnitude less hands, win or lose.

Where I play in Tunica there us no cap on the buy in's. It seems to me that
a cap just benifits the house and players who don't want to risk much. I usually play 1/3 nl and the average stack is around $500, sometimes someone buys in for more and starts playing big stack poker then I and others ask how much he has and then either match his stack or double it to put an end to his bullying. How do you handle someone who either has won alot or had teammates dump to him and is playing big stack poker unless the casino also has the 75 percent rule?

Maybe by realizing that if I have $500 and he has $2000 that he can say "I bet $2000", but I only hear "I bet $500". That he can shove his chips into the middle, but I only see a quarter of them.

If he is trying to "bully the table with a big stack", it sounds like he is playing sub-optimal poker and can be beaten.

As Angus mentioned, effective stacks limit how much bullying a player can do. We do get some big stacks at 1/2 tables but a player can only bet, call or raise what is in front of him.

All in for $1200 is not much of a scare if the player he is all in against has $63.

How does the buy in cap benefit the house?

Most 1/2 pots are <max rake. Most 4/8 limit pots are max rake. Stack size is meaningless in limit poker.

Raising the caps or eliminating them in 1/2 would likely raise the size of the pots on average, wouldn't THAT benefit the house?

Say everyone is playing with a ~$200 stack and someone shows up and buys in for $500 then tries to bully the table. No one else wants to buy in for more, they want to play a game at teh level they are comfortable at. Why does one player get to dictate the size of the game?

That us true but I still prefer to be able to either match his stack or put out more and then tell him ok now let's play poker son. It takes away some of my play if I'm a small stack.

So I guess all the rooms in Las Vegas, AC and Tunica who do not cap their buy in are dealing way fewer hands per hour, is that right?

You'd think they would realize that they are screwing themselves with this no cap stuff then and put caps on all their games. More hands dealt is what every room manager wants to have happen.

This would be dependant on the rake structure. In the room I deal the rake on $4/$8 is less than 6% when the pot its max rake. But for $1-$2 NL its 10%. The result is that a much higher percentage of pots in the NL game hit max rake than do in the $4/$8 limit game.


I'm not following this line of thinking. Since most $1-$2 NL hands are not players being all-in and even when they are they are often at max rake anyway ..... I'm not sure why you conclude that more chips in players stacks is necessarily going to mean that bigger pots. While bigger stacks may encourage bigger pots remeber that once max rake is made bigger pots don't make bigger rake anyway.

To see why the cap helps the house imagine a really low cap. Say $100. Two players come and play each has $1000 to play with. Player A and Player b each buy in for max. Each hand they get all in and player A wins. Each time Player b is felted he reaches in and buys back in for max until he is broke. they play 10 hands at max rake before Player b is broke and the game ends.

Now remove the cap and both players buy in for $1000. On the first hand they are all-in and Player A wins. Player be is broke and the game is over and the house has made max rake on 1 hand instead of 10.

now if the rake was uncapped it would make no difference but becaus ethe rake is capped the house does better by having the money transefr over more hands (with the exception of the money transfering at such a low rate as to avoid a rake.)

In addition in the first instance the additional time that the game is being played may also help keep the game alive as there is an increase time period for new players to come by see the game and join in. Its harder to start a new game than it is to keep an existing game going.

his buy-in size does not effectively alter the size of the game.

really If have $500 in front of you and he sits down $5000 in front of him what play do you not have available to you that you would have had if he pulled out $5ooo and put $500 on the table and then put the rest of it back in his pocket?

more rake!?

It is harder to make moves as small stack and also where is the integrity in sitting you down at a table with a couple or more big stacks and telling all you can buy in for is $200-300? The casino should atleast offer the 75 percent rule.

Tell me specifically what moves you are talking about.

And I have no idea what the integrity question is? Are you saying that if I buy in for the minimum I am making an assertion to you that I have no more money?

Are you saying $500 (your average stack) in a 1/3 is a "short stack"?

And the 'integrity' is that you get your "big stack" they same way they did, you win it. There would seem to be less 'integrity' if huge stacks really make as much a difference as you say and you allow some guy to buy in for $5K when some at the table may not afford it.

I didn't mean to imply the games go slower (if that was what you are saying).

What I was trying to get at is that it takes longer for someone to lose their share if they can't lose it all in one hand, so they stick around and play more hands over a longer period of time. Likewise some players are gonna quit if they win enough for the day, and they also will have to stick around longer to win that amount because the other players can't lose as quickly.

I think we have poasters here that work in the L.A. market with the extremely short stack fixed-buy games. Like 1/2 40 max, 2/3 100 max, and 5/10 400 max at Commerce. I believe that it is common knowledge that these games are structured this way specifically to grind out drop. But I am not in the industry and I can't cite any sources.

That being said, I regularly play in a 2/3 300 max ($5 drop on flop game) game. The Lake Elsinore Hotel always has the same exact game going except without any capped buy-in. In my statistically insignificant experience at LE, people buy in just about the same, usually 200-300, and the game has the same exact feel, stack wise. I think, and this is just my uninformed guess, that unless a room sets the cap very short (like LA), the difference is somewhat negligible to the players. The house bean-counters might still find that enough players stay a significant time longer in aggregate, AFAIK.

Granted, the idea of everyone sitting with about the same stack is good for the game. It is especially good for the image of the game in noobs imagination (LOL about bullying a table with a big stack in a cash game). Personally I prefer uncapped games.

Sometimes it may not be won but partners dumping. I feel that if a casino sees fit to cap their games they should follow the 75 percent rule many do.