Any Poker-reason for capped buy-ins?

[EjnarPik]

Is there any Poker-reason for capped buy-ins?

I am not thinking along the lines of protecting people from losing more than they can afford, the casinos wish to keep the game going etc, but only resons relating directly to the game.

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[AaronBrown]

If you care about who wins the tournament, yes. If it's just money, no.

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any Poker-reason for capped buy-ins?

I am not thinking along the lines of protecting people from losing more than they can afford, the casinos wish to keep the game going etc, but only resons relating directly to the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the stacks are too large compared to the blinds, then there's no penalty for playing too tight, and if people basically know what they're doing the game will have little action.

[MrTrik]

Exactly. I learned this in the early days of home games. If the stacks are too large and the players are skilled, the game can get very boring and the action low. Casinos would have trouble with this since low action means low rake.

[SheridanCat]

[ QUOTE ]
Casinos would have trouble with this since low action means low rake.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the institute a time charge, it wouldn't matter. At long as the game is full. Most NL I've played has been time based - even the baby games.

Regards,

T

[Beavis68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any Poker-reason for capped buy-ins?

I am not thinking along the lines of protecting people from losing more than they can afford, the casinos wish to keep the game going etc, but only resons relating directly to the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the stacks are too large compared to the blinds, then there's no penalty for playing too tight, and if people basically know what they're doing the game will have little action.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense to me. Big stacks mean big implied odds, which means you can play more hands profitably.

Short stacks mean you need to play tighter.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any Poker-reason for capped buy-ins?

I am not thinking along the lines of protecting people from losing more than they can afford, the casinos wish to keep the game going etc, but only resons relating directly to the game.

Ejnar Pik, Southern-Docks.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Many casinos spread uncapped big games, e.g., the Foxwoods 5/5 often sports players with 5-digit stacks. Bugsy's Club spreads uncapped NL online. The reason big bet games are often capped is to preserve different styles of game. 50 BB poker is much different from 200 BB poker, which is much different from 500 BB poker. A buyin cap allows casinos to offer the style of poker they want to offer.

[Iceman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any Poker-reason for capped buy-ins?

I am not thinking along the lines of protecting people from losing more than they can afford, the casinos wish to keep the game going etc, but only resons relating directly to the game.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the stacks are too large compared to the blinds, then there's no penalty for playing too tight, and if people basically know what they're doing the game will have little action.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense to me. Big stacks mean big implied odds, which means you can play more hands profitably.

Short stacks mean you need to play tighter.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has to do with risk versus reward. When you're very deep, you have to play much tighter once there's any real action, since the potential loss is so high. If you have a short stack, you can be more inclined to shove it in, since you're not risking nearly as much. You can limp in more preflop in unraised pots when the money is deep, but that's not what we're talking about here - and then you have to play a strong hand a lot more cautiously postflop when lots of limpers also saw the flop.