Comments on: Some ideas to discuss

By: Bob

Bob — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:44:46 +0000

I've noticed that lowering the buy-in has increased the agressive betting.

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:43:09 +0000

Lowering the buy-in to 5 won't help when we are so used to playing with 10 in chips (we would still bet 1 pre-flop being 1/5 of your stack now). So a 5 buy in, with 10 in chips maybe. Would make our money last longer.Limit sucks!

By: Eric Miller

Eric Miller — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:38:50 +0000

I think dropping the buying back down to $5 would probably work best because when someone goes all in 2 hands after buying back in it's only for $3-$4 instead of $8-$9. I don't think that eliminating crazy games will really help any. There have been many nights that crazy games have been the only reason that as a short stack that i was able to get back to even. Also he have always said that when we start crazy games if some one wants to cash out that we won't hold it against them. Everyone knows the risk of crazy games. Also limiting the number of buy-ins is really up to the person buying in. I'm sure that i've lost more than anyone else this year. I stopped counting at $1500 and I can't really try to blame anyone else or the HGPA for allowing me to buy-in $80 a night. I know when I'm going to cards how much money I'm willing to lose.

By: Neil A. Macfarlane, Esquire

Neil A. Macfarlane, Esquire — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:38:02 +0000

I concur on the rising stakes crushing out some of the lesser-wealthy members of the HGPA. We don’t want this to become two-tiered, and since I seem to often be on the losing end of things I am happy to cap my losses in some signifigant way. The people who play well will still get paid, the people who don’t will lose less and people who only want to blow $20 instead of $40 can do so in style.

Suggested Options:

Lowering Stakes
I think if we lower the stakes we should stick to it, none of this alternating shit. I’m okay with the stakes the way they are but if people are down with a shift back to the $5 buy-ins, I’m okay with that too. This will make a large stack even harder to get at, but we could have $100 buy-ins or $1 buy-ins and this problem would prevail. It’s part of poker, that’s that.

Limit Games
I personally don’t care for Limit Games as it hinders my style of play (aggressive/lunacy). We could try it a few times to see how it goes, but I think you’d still see the same people chasing flushes and gut-shot straight draws, only now they have to pay less to do so.

Limited No. of Buy-Ins
I kind of like this idea, even though I’d likely be one of the first people to suffer under its enacting. This would “level” the field a bit and force people to play almost like they do in a tourney after the third round. It would neuter some of the “what the hell” feel of the games, but I’d be interested in giving this a whirl. What would the limit be? I’d think four would be the minimum, but that’s up for debate.

Ditching Crazy Games
I’m getting kind of sick of crazy games as it is. I know I’m not the only one, either. The only fun things that ever happen in crazy games are some small stack tripling up on AAAAA over some big stacks KKKKK. Most of the time it’s small stacks desperately trying to parlay their medium-good hand and getting crushed by big stacks. Everyone is drunk or high and it’s more like tossing grenades around on the table than actual poker. I’d be fine to ditch these things, personally.Thoughts?

By: Carsten Knox

Carsten Knox — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:37:08 +0000

Huh. Here I thought I was the only one. My vote for (maybe periodic) weekly games would be thethree buy-in cap, as I can never stay late enough for"crazy games" anyway. But then, I'm such an irregularattendee… this may seem like insanity to some. Democracy rules.

By: Smiley

Smiley — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 17:35:08 +0000

I think we should increase the buy-ins to $20 and start crazy games at
10:30…..But seriously I think the night without crazy games would be the best
idea….although I think people lose just as much at omaha.