# Bank Caps on Table Levels

I feel it is critical to place Bank Caps on Table Levels (just like their is a cap on how many chips you can bring initially to table). You claim you are a fair and fun site with an eye on entertainment. Well there is nothing fair about “say” a 30 million chip bank being allowed to play down on a 50/100 Table. This skews it extremely bad on those small banks trying to have fun while building their bank. A 30 million chip bank can chase and bully bet with total immunity as at that level nothing they do has ANY consequence to their bank. While smaller banks get shafted as they can’t afford those kind of loses - it DOES AFFECT their bank.

My suggestion for BANK CAPS is quite easy and logical and fair:
Use the formula = big blind + small blind X 1000 hands paying it X two tables for those who do

``````1/2 - 2/4 - 5/10 Cap use 5/10 so 15 X 1000 X 2 = 30,000     after that
10/20 Cap 30 X 1000 X 2 = 60,000 and etc. up the line
25/50 Cap 75 X 1000 X 2 = 150,000  ||  50/100 Cap 150 X 1000 X 2 = 300,000 ||  etc. up the line
until you reach the top level 500K/1M which would have NO Bank Cap
``````

So say your Bank was 3,000,001 or better ( 3 million being the Cap on 500/1K) than the lowest Table Level you can join would be a 1K/2K
( You are always allowed to play higher as long as you meet the Lowest chip RANGE Replay has on Initial Chips brought to Table ). This makes the Tables more equivalent and fair meaning your chasing / betting now DOES have an impact.

I think everyone would have more fun and entertainment this way.

1 Like

1 Like

I agree with high stake players and as you see from my post, I gave Replay a simple solution. I disagree with the Rep that said he enjoyed these players being there as they gained knowledge from them. That is wrong - they don’t offer advice or help but just take advantage of players as you say can’t keep up as bets affect your bank while having no affect on theirs. I think this is very wrong.

3M is only 15 full buy-ins at 1K/2K, which is well below what most people would recommend in terms of bank roll management. Reason being that you shouldn’t be playing stakes where you can be bullied out of making the correct play. Your suggestion would just force everyone to play scared rather than allow people to play freely.
An actual solution would be to enforce a minimum bankroll to be able to play at a particular stake, but I don’t feel like the site should enforce that, it’s on each individual player to decide what works best for them.

2 Likes

I really don’t think there should be limits like this. I’m a high-ranking player, but when I play a different game than usual (eg. omaha high low or seven card stud), I much prefer playing at a lower ranked table. I’m not out to get anyone.

If you want to build your bankroll, improve your play in the games. If you want to improve your play in the games, play at your chosen low stakes game, against someone more experienced than you & learn from their play. Learn when to fold um, when to hold um & when to play um. GL at the tables & always have fun !!!

Considering I have over 30 years of playing real poker in Casinos and Card Rooms, I have plenty of experience ! But playing on a Low Level Table with a Player who brings 30 million chips or more can go All In every hand without affecting their Bank TEACHES a Player NOTHING. They gain no experience !

Add this on top of your Deck Building Algorithm produces BOARD ODDS that are 3 to 4 times higher than ACTUAL REAL CARD MATH BOARD ODDS (I’ve tracked it through 7 Accts. and over 4 Million Boards) using Replay as a Teaching Tool is very much a mistakes. It’s FREE CHIPS that should be used for FUN and ENTERTAINMENT. The only TRUE random deck generation would be to use UNSEEDED Powershell Functions which produces only (point) .7% greater BOARD ODDS (just the 5 cards on the board - no Players Hole Cards considered in ODDS) Research real math of board cards on Google. Being a former Computer Programmer, I created an unseeded Powershell Script that used the functions and ran it over 2 Million Hands to collect the odds so I know it works.

But I digress. My point on Bank Caps keeps the Game more Fun and Entertaining and frankly I think it would produce more MONEY for Replay as those High Bank Players start losing, they might have to spend some REAL MONEY buying FREE CHIPS which is ultimately what you at Replay would like to see.

If you wish to try a new Game or Style it is VERY EASY just to setup another GMAIL Account (you can do a bunch of them) and Sign Up on Replay with it to use as a new Game Players. I have had 7 Accounts over the years.

Considering the size of your Bank, I can see why you would say that. (BTW - my formula for a 1K/2K table is 3K X 10000 blind pay ins X 2 = 6M). This may be a little tight but considering this is a GAME (with FREE CHIPS) not REAL POKER bringing 2 BILLION CHIPS to a 1K/2K doesn’t teach you ANYTHING about Bank Management since you could go ALL IN every hand and it would have NO AFFECT on your Bank. How is this teaching Bank Management ? Especially against a Player who may only have 900K ? Again this is suppose to be a FUN and ENTERTAINING GAME - not a TEACHING TOOL ! Their are Web Sites that actually can be used as teaching tools (they even have Monitors that give you accurate ADVICE on playing Poker) - I’ve researched them. THIS ISN’T ONE !

Perhaps Replay could agree to say “compromise” a bit, for instance have the 3 million bankroll cap available as an option for a few of the 50/100 tables, but still have the no cap version available, giving players the option of which way to go.
I would also say that if a player went over the 3 million cap while on the table, the player would be able to remain at that table until leaving, but not be able to join another capped table unless the bankroll dipped below 3 million again. I could see it could be an issue for players hovering around the cap level.
Just throwing out ideas

1 Like

The chips I could win buy going all in every hand aren’t worth any more than the chips I would risk though. You can’t really Martingale poker because of the buy-in limits, so I don’t understand why any high stakes players would do this. Unless they’re just there to deliberately annoy other players - but that’s really a different problem and likely requires a different solution.

1 Like

Absolutely a different problem and the other player, then has a choice to leave & get in a different 50/100 table

@cdr5vft6bgy7 , What would be your suggested cap on Free rolls? That door would be open with caps as well. I believe that would cancel all Free Rolls and totally destroy our new players hope to build their bankroll. The vast majority of us all are here to have fun and learn from each other and yes win !

I agree with the comprise as a good solution and even though I had not mentioned it earlier I agree with the issues about if you go over while on Table not applying the cap until you quit table. I do this myself already. But I definitely agree with Table having Cap and some having none. That was an excellent suggestion / compromise.

Tournaments are a whole another animal and should NOT have Caps applied. I agree with that. Strictly talking Ring Games and I think TheKnutts suggestion is an excellent compromise. Half having Caps / having None allowing the Player to choose how he wants to play.

Just an opinion. But I really think Replay should stop making player chip counts public, only shared with people on your friends list. I notice too many players, especially new ones pay way too much attention the the displayed ranks and the chip counts they see in the profiles.

This issue was discussed at length already as mention by @Poki65 and the discussion was closed. I think most understood there was no logical or fair solution, despite much discussion. Its deff worth reading because IMO it covers the same issues you are raising.

Placing rules on what tables a player can join based on Bankroll is going to make a LOT of unhappy and confused players on RP. IMO your suggestion would create more problems than it solves.

I have seen lots of players with several million chips that only ever play Duck pond 1/2 stakes. I see the same at lots of other higher stakes too. Some players have hundreds of millions or over a billion chips and still play relatively low, and opt for a very conservative Bankroll Management Strategy. I almost never see players complaining about these rich players at the table.

I often play with a friend at 200/400, 80K buy in for fun. Based on your “quite easy and logical and fair” suggestion I wouldn’t be able to play with them?!?!

It sounds like you are taking an issue with a rare incident/player that can easily be solved by yourself. Either learn to play a winning strategy against these occasional players you meet or switch tables to somewhere you are more comfortable at.

2 Likes

If a 30 million chip bankroll is playing at a lower stakes, it means he/she is practicing conservative bankroll management and i believe it should be commendable.

Whereas if someone is playing a stakes, he/she cannot afford to lose, it might be due to improper bankroll management.

One doesn’t have to be afraid of the stakes if he/she is properly bankrolled to handle variance/swings.

That’s the beauty of bankroll management.

1 Like

No casino ever checks your bank account before allowing you to choose a table.

3 Likes

OK OK I give. It would seem my opinion is disliked by most players. As I said in 1 of my post, I played live poker with real cards for over 30 years so I don’t need to learn anything as I made a decent monthly profit for all those years until my health failed. Now I can no longer get out of my apartment, So between my Bank already and Replay’s 2500 free chips they give me each day, I can KILL numerous hours just playing the 1/2 Table Level without being concerned about “growing” my Bank.

VERY sorry I ever started this Topic Chain. Players have a Good Life. With Replay’s “Dealer Chat Only” filter I will never have to see Players comments or be tempted to comment myself, so I’ll just sit down at 1/2 Tables and KILL MY TIME !

REPLAY as far as I’m concerned you can CLOSE this discussion chain.

GOODBYE