Home Game rule, is there a flaw in it?

In my home game, it's $10 buy in and 5/10 cent blinds. we usually have 5-9 players.

The host has a interesting rule that the max buy in is as much as the biggest stack. Thus, hypothetically, if someone busts out on the first hand, everyone on the table can now buy in for up to $20.

For some reason, it seems like the players who are more willing to use a lot of money and also players who tend to be more aggressive win a lot more often. Does this have to do with the buy-in system or is it just that the aggressive players are probably better than the non?

Here's my theory: if someone buys in for $10, goes all in in a 40/60 (not in his favor) situation and loses. He can now buy in for $20. He later gets into another situation like this, going all in for $20 in a 40/60 situation. This time he loses again. Now he buys in for $40, doies the same thing, and wins. After all this he now has gained $10, although he lost 2 all ins.

So i'm wondering if in the long run, he'd then win money, although he is always putting himself in a bad situation?

thats similar to the win roulette by the
triple your bet every time you lose method.
It only really works if you have an inifinite bankroll.
Otherwise he is going to lose more often than not and the guy who wins more is going to leave the table with his money before he has the chance to win it back.

Each hand should be taken in isolation, if they are making -EV decisions they will lose in the long run. Its the same false logic that makes people double their money on the (almost) even money in roulette, risking a lot to win a little and the 0's always get them in the end.

The math is a bit more complex than that, but there is a serious stack advantage in NL games.

In some of the $1/$2 bar side games I play there's no max buy in. I buy in $100 or whatever the max stack is. If someone takes a big pot off of me I buy in over their stack. These games don't have a lot of people with actual bankrolls, so when they lose their $60 or whatever, they're gone. By the end of the night it's me, a couple other good players, and a lucky drunk guy or two cashing out 10-15 people's money.

Buy in heavy, whenever you can. Only do it when you lose a pot or something, because if you do it constantly, everyone else will do it and have the same advantage. Or worse, people will stop showing up because they can't win with just $10.

K, lets say you have an infinite bankroll (all hypothetical). Also everyone who knows they are up 60/40 in their favor will go all in everytime. If this is the case, will the person win in the long run?

If I have a finite bankroll, and you have an infinite bankroll, it can be 99% to 1% AI, and eventually I lose.

Originally Posted by dev

If I have a finite bankroll, and you have an infinite bankroll, it can be 99% to 1% AI, and eventually I lose.

yup. All you need to to is win it once and hes out and you win all of your money back in one go.

Just remember that they could be risking huge amounts to win their money back, but you are only risking your original $10.

Quit when your ahead or buy in over them again.

Originally Posted by finky

Just remember that they could be risking huge amounts to win their money back, but you are only risking your original $10.

Quit when your ahead or buy in over them again.

once you get up to $50 or so claim you have to go to the bathroom and you dont trust them to leave your money there. Cash out and buy back in for $10 when you come back downstairs. Problem solved

The "if I lose this bet, I'll double my next bet method" is known as the Martingale system. If anyone's interested there's a ton written about it out there. It does take an infinite BR for it to really work, although I believe over a normal sample size what it does is break up the bell curve found in most -EV games. That is, using the "bet $1 every time method" at a Roulette table, you expect the bell curve to peak at maybe minus ten bucks a session. Using the Martingale, you find two bell curves--one where, say, you break even, and one where way further down the scale, where you lose your ass. In aggregate, you lose more per session with the Martingale than flat betting.

cashing out then back in for less is VERY bad etiquette. Do that in any of the games and we'll see you out back. This game probably isn't like that, but still, watch yourself.

There is kind of a flaw the house games we play we max off the buy-in at about average chip stack b/c guys who have more money could buy-in large stack and dominate (really, unfair advantage).

I mean- the restrict the original buy-in to 10 dollars, in fairness. If you can buy back big stack, then the agressive players (who either win big or lose big early) will get a large stack one way or the other- and the advantage of having one.

We have home game on Fridays that is a 50 dollar buy-in 1/2 NL. For the guys that come in late, they can only buy-in for HALF the big stack. I think this is more fair than letting them buy in the same amount as the big stack. On a side note, the guys that have been playing since the game started can also reload for 1/2 the big stack. So if the big stack is $150 and I'm sitting there with 40 bucks. I can buy in for $35 more chips.

Home Game rule, is there a flaw in it?

yes, the max buyin should be predetermined (ie 50bb, 100bb, 200bb, uncapped, etc.). The biggest stack at the table should have exactly zero influence on what the max buyin of a game should be.

Originally Posted by dev

cashing out then back in for less is VERY bad etiquette. Do that in any of the games and we'll see you out back. This game probably isn't like that, but still, watch yourself.

last time at one of our home games someone tried to do that and he was suspended from attending for a couple weeks

i did something like this at a $25 omaha table the other night.

through some debauchery i got my stack up to $200, then i just kept getting allin against people. since i was never that much of a dog, i would eventually bust people after getting allin 2 or 3 times, and eventually my stack peaked at $450

Originally Posted by Pelion

Originally Posted by dev

If I have a finite bankroll, and you have an infinite bankroll, it can be 99% to 1% AI, and eventually I lose.

yup. All you need to to is win it once and hes out and you win all of your money back in one go.

Thats not true...

If you and I have infinite bankrolls, and instead of a "99% to 1%" situation it's a "100% to 0% "situation (i'm betting the sky is pink or that water isnt wet or whatever) ... after a million years, we still both have the exact same amount of money we started with...

Infinite Money.

That was deep like the ocean Laeelin.

BTW: What i think he was trying to say with " If I have a finite bankroll, and you have an infinite bankroll, it can be 99% to 1% AI, and eventually I lose." is that if I have an infinite bankroll, and you DONT, then even if it's 99% to 1% ... unless you stop playing, I will end up with all your money (though it's a shame that I will not gain anything by taking your money.)

sounds like roulette