Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > General Poker Discussion > Home Poker
FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-22-2004, 05:54 AM
brasse brasse is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 15
Default Arguments for table stakes?

Hi!

Me and my brother have recently started hosting a biweekly Texas Hold'em home game. Now I want to lay down the rules for buying more chips.

What are the arguments for using table stakes? I can see that it has a big impact on the play when playing no limit but I can't see it having that much of an impact when playing limit. At our home game we play limit and I would like to use the table stakes rule for when to buy chips. We try to use "card room rules" as much as possible, so why not table stakes?

What are the arguments for using table stakes? Am I correct in assuming that it doesn't have that much impact when playing limit?

Any comments on this would be really helpfull!

Regards,
Mattias
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-22-2004, 08:49 AM
elwoodblues elwoodblues is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Rosemount, MN
Posts: 462
Default Re: Arguments for table stakes?

Even in limit, someone can theoretically put in their very last dollar...what happens if they then get raised, do they lose the pot because they can't call? If you allow people to be "all in" you have to make it table stakes or else you can have big problems.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-22-2004, 09:07 AM
Jay Jay is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 14
Default Re: Arguments for table stakes?

Two aurguments for going table stakes.

1) A person should not be able to lose a pot because they don't have money to call a bet. Simply make a side pot. One way to help protect the all-inners (not sure that's a word) is to institute a minimum buy-in during the start of the game. A 20 times big bet works well. Unlike at a casino where people come and go, usually during a home game all the players start at a certain time and usually end around a certain time. You could use this to help set buy-ins.

2) And I've seen this before. A person raises a player with no chips but now the player decides he has a good hand or catches something so he digs into his pocket and re-raises. This is not fair, because if the player does not hit or think he has a good enough hand he sticks with being all-in. Not fair at all.

Stick with table stakes.

j.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-22-2004, 01:49 PM
smoore smoore is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 924
Default Re: Arguments for table stakes?

You have to use table stakes, IMO. Like the other posters have said, you have to protect people that have gone all-in *and* you have to protect the other player from the angle of "Oh, now I have a flush so I'll get another $20 out of my pocket".

In addition, at our game cash does play when we're playing limit, but not when we play NL, you have to chip it up. I instituted this rule because we had some angle-shooters saying "I'm ALL IN!" (usually with TV drama included no charge) and then fold their arms across the $40 in cash they have tucked into the rail. Now, chip it or it doesn't play.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-22-2004, 02:17 PM
Mojo Tooth Mojo Tooth is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Oregon, USA
Posts: 129
Default Re: Arguments for table stakes?

There have been some excellent and well-stated posts above so I won't add much. Except to say that any big-bet poker, meaning pot-limit as well as no-limit, must be table-stakes. There simply is no other way that works. In limit poker you could possibly entertain the notion of completing a bet from your pocket but that still is somewhat busted in the case of multiway pots.

In short... always table stakes. Always.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-22-2004, 07:07 PM
EarlCat EarlCat is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 411
Default Re: Arguments for table stakes?

[ QUOTE ]
2) And I've seen this before. A person raises a player with no chips but now the player decides he has a good hand or catches something so he digs into his pocket and re-raises.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the kind of crap that only belongs in movies. NEVER let a player rebuy in the middle of a hand. If they want to rebuy, they have to be out of the pot. Either fold, or wait until the hand is over.

My personal thought is a NL you need a max buy-in. In limit, you need a min buy-in (so people aren't rebuying every single friggin hand).
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-22-2004, 07:40 PM
warewulf warewulf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: LA, CA
Posts: 266
Default Re: Arguments for table stakes?

In my regular game, if you want out, you fold. Otherwise you "go light" which means you will owe all the bets made. You can't go all-in. If you owe $20 at the end of the hand, you're either good for it until next week if you're a regular, or you head to the ATM! These guys have been playing for years, so everyone trusts each other.

If I run a game, it's table stakes. Just like a casino, money not on the table DOESN'T PLAY. Either leave cash on the table and it can play, or say that cash does not play. The important thing is to establish the rules before any hands are dealt. Definitely no dipping into the pocket when they make the nut! Slezzy people try to do this -- they keep a light stack and then decide when it's worth dipping into the pocket. With table stakes, if you run out of money, there's a side pot.

warewulf
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.