multiplier or cash for cash?

[nature boy]

you know, somehow i doubt that lol.

[jeSteR]

how about a $1000 buy in then

[joel]

sure i'll vote 100$ buy in. that's a pretty large value and people are more likely to be careful with money exchanges, and chips received are all correct if they are putting in one hundo

[joel]

[nature boy]

$1000 buy in would definitely end the donkey action... MAYBE, but no one would come out.
and i don't know how many would be down for $100 buy in even.

[se7entse7en]

Also, it doesn't sound like the multiplier issue is the main one that's causing you the grief. Errors made with a $100 buy in could hurt you a lot more.

Sounds to me you need to make some house rules regarding stack lending, ious, etc. first.

[nature boy]

[Duncan]

i think we should have a pay before play rule... and also no lending from your own stack.. you have to buy in from the bank... i think our problems are usually because chips move here and there too casually...

that being said, i think $100 buy ins are ok for me too... i think we actually used to do $40 buy ins until Dave complained that he wanted to play for fun and not money so we did multipliers with $20 buy ins... but that still doesn't really work because i think most of us buy in at least 1 more time after we're down anyways haha

[nature boy]

i still do play for fun and not money. i'm afraid that having a "forced" buy in of more than $20 could cause more harm than good (i think this was dave's rationale too). i hate to say this, but some of us are sore losers. if we lose a big chunk of money, i wouldn't want that to get in the way of our friendship. however, if you keep buying in at $20, then you know what you're getting yourself into (major problems lol). but if you're "forced" to buy in for $100, the chances of you losing more is greater (i put forced in quotes because i know you can just buy in for $20, but you're not going to last long against stacks of $100).

losing $20 a week to your friends isn't a big deal. losing $100 to your friends every week is.

[Duncan]

but i have a feeling if we play $100 buy ins, some of our wives wont let us play every week... (as if they let us play every week anyways lol)

[geForce]

[Duncan]

i have a feeling the donkeys (pretty much all of us) are still gonna be donkeys unless the buy in is at least $100... lol

[geForce]

It doesn't matter how much you up the buy-in by... that way, donkey action is limited only to how much money someone has. That would just aim to tap out a person's wallet. That would make it too much about the money to me, and I don't think I'd enjoy that very much and probably wouldn't play anymore.

Instead of upping the buy-in, why don't set a max number of buy-ins we're allowed, like how we do in hold'em tournaments. Let's say for example, we set the max number of buy-ins at 3 buy-ins of $20, then after you've reached your max, you can't play anymore if you run out of chips. I bet that would make you think twice about playing donkey.

[nature boy]

yeah, i'm afraid that making it about money would change the flavour of the game. every now and then is fine, but i'm thinking that if we have $100 buy in all the time we'd slowly stop playing (because we'd can't stand each other).

gordon's idea is interesting, but i don't know if that would really stop the donkey action. i think donkey's will be donkey's because that's just the donkey's nature.

[joel]

i guess if it doesn't stop the donkey's nature, then at least it makes it a shorter night for said donkey... but people could be against limiting how many rebuys. essentially if they are 3 down, you are not giving them any chance to get anything back.

i think tourney's used to work well, because everyone used to be competing for a single pot. if you donkey it, you're done. but they take long and require a lot of people. And i guess people find the straight up holdem too boring.