Now, part of me wants to ignore these complaints (especially since on average this year I’m taking home a good chunk of those large pots and anything that limits pot size will reduce my take-home), and assume that everyone who’s complaining will eventually have a winning night that will make them happy about the format again, but I am concerned about the possibility of losing several people and not being able to depend on having a game at all.

So, in order to start the discussion, a couple of ideas. I’m just throwing these out there—feel free to suggest other ideas or modifications to these; especially if you’re one of the people who isn’t happy with the current situation:

1. Can we have different stakes on different nights? For instance, could we switch (back) to the $5 buy-in on the 1^st and 3^rd week of the month? The idea here is to both “slow the bleeding” and make a smaller stake last longer (at least $20 could be 4 all-ins, instead of 2). The problem here is that this magnifies the dominance of someone who does establish a large stack.
2. Can we try some nights where we play with a structured limit (or hell, even a pot limit) rather than everything being no-limit? This doesn’t even have to be a “special night” thing, but could just be something that people call when it’s there crack at dealer’s choice. Instead of calling “Hold ‘Em” call “25-50 Limit Hold ‘Em” or something. This would obviously change the dynamics of play substantially, and presumably in a way that would result in smaller pots, and fewer bust outs. The downside here is that pretty much everyone in the universe agrees this is less fun than regular Hold ‘Em (precisely because it is less dangerous). The other downside is that this will just magnify the “can’t bluff anyone off anything at this table” issue.
3. Can we limit the number of buyins at (some of) the weekly games? The idea here would be to do two things: first, to prevent the weekly pots of getting really big, which in turn would prevent a lot of the “swinging my stack” behaviour that can cripple people with small bank rolls. The second effect would be to artificially level the playing field for people with different economic realities: it doesn’t matter how many times I could afford to buy in if I know that I can only buy in three times a night—and you want to believe that during that third buyin I’ll be playing like quarters matter to me, because I don’t want to have to go home.
4. Can we have some nights without crazy games? I know that some people work hard all night to build up a decent stack during real poker, and then are actually crushed when they get into a “four aces versus five queens” situation at the river. The crazy games are the thing that prevents the answer to a complaint of “I keep losing more money than I really want to every week” from being “well, play better”. I suspect that having some weeks be “all poker” would also help with some of the people who are complaining.

First of all, is it true you shmucks let Gibbs win again? I was enjoying being the only threepeat, and now I have to welcome Bob to the club.

(Congratulations Bob. What do you want on the trophy?)

Then, since I had to miss this weekend’s rituals at the altar of Gamblor, I am interested in the question of a weekly game this week, in order to get my fix. Are we up for that, and do we have an offer of a host?

The position that most people seemed to advance was that we should formally adopt the “full bet rule” for all-in raises.

The common description of how this rule works is as follows:

If a player goes all in with a bet or raise rather than a call, another special rule comes into play. No-limit games usually use what is called the full bet rule. The full bet rule states that if the amount of an all-in bet is less than the minimum bet, or if the amount of an all-in raise is less than the full amount of the previous raise, it does not constitute a “real” raise, and therefore does not reopen the betting action.

For example, with the full bet rule in effect, a player opens the betting round for $20, and the next player has a total stake of $30. He may raise to $30, declaring himself all in, but this does not constitute a “real” raise, in the following sense: if a third player now calls the $30, and the first player’s turn to act comes up, he may now call the additional $10, but he does not have the right to re-raise further. The all-in player’s pseudo-raise was really just a call with some extra money, and the third player’s call was just a call, so the initial opener’s bet was simply called by both remaining players, closing the betting round (even though he must still equalize the money by putting in the additional $10).

If we can get a simple majority in favour of formally adopting this rule then it will be added to the Etiquette page as one of the standard HGPA rules.