To Cap or not to CAP

[CarlNiclas]

Hi,

in our low limit home game we have debated over whether we should have a cap or not on the betting. The setting is basically that we are usually around 7-8 people and we play $1-$2 limit hold'em and up until yesterday we have had a cap at four bets per street. Pretty straight forward, really.

However, we started thinking about *why* there is a cap in games such as this? We could see why casinos have a cap - they make more money the more hands that are dealt, as they usually have a maximum rake (at least on the internet). Fewer bets -> quicker hands -> more hands per hour -> more rake per hour.

Are there any other reasons for having a cap? Does it stymie calling as players get more scared of being five and six-bet etc? Or does it generate more calls as the implicit odds increase somewhat?

Any input would be appreciated!

Thanks!

[scrub]

The biggest reason for caps is to protect players from collusion.

scrub

[LetsRock]

LImit poker was developed for a reason - it limits the amount a player has to risk at any given time. I hadn't considered it as an anti-collusion device (and that makes some sense) but a third player could get trapped between 2 other players who decide to go crazy, even if there are no collusive intentions.

Many casinos will lift the cap if it gets heads up (2 players can bet as many times as they want when no one else is involved in the hand. You could adopt this rule if you want to raise the bar a little. The way it typically works is the 2 players bet and raise normally until the cap is met. At any point after this, one of the player can raise as much as they like. The caller has the option of just calling the amount of a normal bet, calling the actual amount or raising again if he wants.

If you want no-limit, then play no-limit with a maximum buy-in (so the "rich" guy can't dominate the game from the get-go).