This request would get out of control quickly. Say you have a $200-$500 table, and the max stack is $1200. You then allow multiple players to buy-in at $1200, then someone doubles up to $2400. The guys who just wanted to play with $200 would be shaking their heads at how laughable this setup is, and you'd have a few guys at some point who then owe you a crap ton the next day and they would probably quit with a very sour taste in their mouth.
Set up different ring tables.
It provides different stake levels for everyone to find the table(s) they feel most comfortable playing at.
New table options for ring game buy-in?
-
- Posts: 170
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2020 5:05 pm
Re: New table options for ring game buy-in?
While you outline one possible scenario, it doesn't change the fact that we are relaying a feature request from our user community.Supersonics wrote: ↑Tue Dec 20, 2022 11:14 pm This request would get out of control quickly. Say you have a $200-$500 table, and the max stack is $1200. You then allow multiple players to buy-in at $1200, then someone doubles up to $2400. The guys who just wanted to play with $200 would be shaking their heads at how laughable this setup is, and you'd have a few guys at some point who then owe you a crap ton the next day and they would probably quit with a very sour taste in their mouth.
Set up different ring tables.
It provides different stake levels for everyone to find the table(s) they feel most comfortable playing at.
The scenario we most often see is that a ring game is running for several hours and multiple users may have 3x the original max limit of the table and a new player would like to buyin at a larger limit than the original table stakes.
Thus, we are asking for a "match the stack" ability or the ability for an admin to raise the stakes on an already running table.
-
- Posts: 170
- Joined: Thu May 21, 2020 5:05 pm
Re: New table options for ring game buy-in?
Just open up a higher-limit table later in the evening. For the first two-three hours of our nights, I only have low-medium stake ring tables open, usually 5-7 of these are active (NLHE, PLO, Omaha Hi-Lo, Dealer's Choice). Then around 8-9pm, I load up higher limits for anyone wanting to jump directly there. That helps me accomplish a few things, 1) it actually gets low-medium stake games going, they would not be active if the higher limit tables are options right from the start. I like this because there are many players who should be playing at those stakes, and not the higher stakes. 2) When I load up the higher-limit tables, people can choose to jump into those, and the players who are already up may make jump in and multi-table, or new players wanting to jump directly into a higher limit table now have a lot of options.
I'm sure you'll have players who are comfortable multi-tabling, so the guys crushing your primary table may be very comfortable buying in at the max of your higher-limit table, and the new players can jump right in there and start at an even-playing field.
I'm sure you'll have players who are comfortable multi-tabling, so the guys crushing your primary table may be very comfortable buying in at the max of your higher-limit table, and the new players can jump right in there and start at an even-playing field.
Re: New table options for ring game buy-in?
I agree with Kent on this one.
Why have a low max buy in if you're gonna increase to an arbitrary number, depending on how well a player is doing? Why not play with a 1000bb max buy-in when you want to open up for it later anyways?
I don't buy the bully argument. If a player with a big stack is playing many hands against much shallower stack, he's playing unprofitable. If the players can't take advantage of this, increasing the max buy in isn't going to help them. In fact, you WANT a big stack to play unprofitable. If they don't want to shove or call a $50 shove, what makes you think a $500 shove will solve the "situation" you're in?
And allowing the big stack to go south is never a solution to any problem. Ever.
Finally, I just want to add that the deeper stacks you allow, the worse it is for your fish. And without fish at your table, your game will die. The game must be consistent for your game to be successful. What players think they want, is (quite) often not what they want. Some of the requests comes out of frustration, some are only good for profitable players which is not in your interest. You need to cater to the fish, not the profitable players - the latter comes for the money, the former for the entertainment.
Why have a low max buy in if you're gonna increase to an arbitrary number, depending on how well a player is doing? Why not play with a 1000bb max buy-in when you want to open up for it later anyways?
I don't buy the bully argument. If a player with a big stack is playing many hands against much shallower stack, he's playing unprofitable. If the players can't take advantage of this, increasing the max buy in isn't going to help them. In fact, you WANT a big stack to play unprofitable. If they don't want to shove or call a $50 shove, what makes you think a $500 shove will solve the "situation" you're in?
And allowing the big stack to go south is never a solution to any problem. Ever.
Finally, I just want to add that the deeper stacks you allow, the worse it is for your fish. And without fish at your table, your game will die. The game must be consistent for your game to be successful. What players think they want, is (quite) often not what they want. Some of the requests comes out of frustration, some are only good for profitable players which is not in your interest. You need to cater to the fish, not the profitable players - the latter comes for the money, the former for the entertainment.