Need advice on keeping a cash game from getting too crazy

[bcrimmins]

I love tourneys and have been running a monthly five-table tourney for over three years.  But I also play in some home cash games and one no-limit game in particular is a favorite.  But the game inevitably gets way out of hand after the first couple of hours, i.e., the play get very aggressive and amount of money on the table is crazy.  Everyone at the table are friends and colleagues and some of the epic losses could end up causing tension.  

The guy who usually hosts the game knows that it's getting too crazy and some of the guys who can't afford the huge swings are not coming any more.  He's open to changing the structure a bit to keep it from getting out of hand but still wants to keep a bit of the edge and excitement of no-limit.  Any suggestions?  

We thought of a couple of options:

1) Play cap limit where the cap is an amount that would keep it interesting.  Definitely an option but a cap that is fun in the first hour may not be as much fun in the fifth hour.  Does it makes sense to move the cap up each hour?

2) Limit the amount of money that anyone can have on the table at one time, i.e., set a max stack.  The amount would be high enough that there could be big pots but the downside is limited to the max stack.  The weirdness about that is that every time someone wins a big pot then they have to take money off the table and then the guys who lost can't go back after it because it's in the winners pocket.

Thanks for any advice you have.

[Martini]

I've seen what you describe and I would suggest the following:

* Bump up the stakes. Though this might seem counter-intuitive, whenever I've seen mad loose action it's been when the blinds are so low in relation to what people feel comfortable playing with.

* Play deeper. Part of what causes a lot of chips flying around is someone getting stacked and chasing their losses. If you allow for bigger buy ins then players (and people max out their buy in) then players who are stuck still have enough of a stack to work with and won't feel like they have to get their whole stack in trying to get lucky.

* Allow players to run hands twice. If you get the proverbial all in coin flip with QQ vs AK pre-flop, let the players run the board twice to cut down on variance. Or allow them to specify how much they want to play for. Let's say you have a heads up hand between two players, each with $200 in front of them and they are both all in. That's $400+ in the middle but you if they agree to cut down variance they could agree to just play for $150 instead and take the rest back. Run the board and the winner takes the amount left in the middle. Running it that way cuts down on the swinginess like running it twice but assures that someone will win (unless they chop of course) a decent amount but not a ginormous pot.

I would try those approaches first before capping pots or capping stacks.

[William]

Another option is to have two tables with different limits. If you have the space, and the equipment of course.

You could play 25c/50c at both tables and when the stacks and betting get crazy change one of the tables to a 50c/$1 or $1/$2 game.

If you haven't already, allow players to buy in for 200 BBs iso 100 BBs. That reduces the number of times players need to buy extra chips.

[hachkc]

As for #2, never take money off the table while you are playing so just make #2 like a cap.  I've played capped PL/NL games (50-100bb cap) which is fine as long as that's what people want.  Could play spread limit (1-25bb) but I have no experience with that.

Try PL if folks are up for it, keeps anyone from pushing out the gate or making goofy large bets but it takes some practice.  Best way for beginners, rotate the deal and the dealer sits the hand out in order to track the pot for everyone.

Best advice, you'll never make everyone happy so focus on making the folks happy you want to hang around with.

[KPrather]

Or allow them to specify how much they want to play for. Let's say you have a heads up hand between two players, each with $200 in front of them and they are both all in. That's $400+ in the middle but you if they agree to cut down variance they could agree to just play for $150 instead and take the rest back.

I know they do this on High Stakes Poker, but I personally hate this, and here's why:

Player 1 calls.
Player 2 (Player 1's brother) calls.
Player 3 raises.
Player 1 goes all in.
Player 2 reraises all in.
Player 3 gets out of the way.
Players 1 and 2 agree to take their money back and just play for Player 3's money and the blinds.

[Martini]

Or allow them to specify how much they want to play for. Let's say you have a heads up hand between two players, each with $200 in front of them and they are both all in. That's $400+ in the middle but you if they agree to cut down variance they could agree to just play for $150 instead and take the rest back.

I know they do this on High Stakes Poker, but I personally hate this, and here's why:

Player 1 calls.
Player 2 (Player 1's brother) calls.
Player 3 raises.
Player 1 goes all in.
Player 2 reraises all in.
Player 3 gets out of the way.
Players 1 and 2 agree to take their money back and just play for Player 3's money and the blinds.

If you are referring to two players colluding to bully someone out of the pot then that should make itself evident fairly easily and that's a whole different issue especially if they are going to be so blatant about it as to do it like that. If they are going to be more discreet then they would just split up the money in the parking lot afterward. Plus, the times when Player 3 in your scenario wakes up with a real hand will cost them more than they would make from even a few whipsaw maneuvers so it's pretty EV- to try to make money that way.

[William]

I know Guy Laliberte suggested that option to David Benyamine, but then changed the offer to Guy just taking what was in the middle and not playing for it. I don't recall anybody just playing for what was in the pot before the final all-in raise. They do run it more than once on a regular basis though, with Phil Laak's sick option of running it three times and not counting the second on The Big Game.

[Killingbird]

Capping the pot seems like the best plan of action here.