online buy ins and stack sizes

[DB10-2 0]

another thread has made me think about buyins and stack sizes at low and micro NL tables online.stack sizes:when first starting out i always looked for tables with nobody too high over the buy in, and ideally with players holding no more than 2/3 of the buy in. my logic, which i now think was weak at the time, was that these are probably crappy players who, if they get lucky, can't hurt me too badly by doubling up.now i look for a nearly-full table and actually look for people at or above the buy in. it's pretty easy to double up at NLHE at low and micro limits, and the people with those big stacks are the ones i want to have around. last night i nearly tripled my full buy in off of one player who kept reloading, working up a decent sized stack, then losing it to me on boneheaded plays.the verdict: i want more money on that table, because i intend to leave with it.buy ins:i think it's always to your advantage to buy in for the max amount at any table. if you happen to be holding the nuts, you can sometimes double up through someone holding an ignorant straight, a weaker flush, or two pair to your set. this happens so often it's just senseless to come in short stacked.the verdict: always buy in at the max if you're able.thoughts?

[Blink20 0]

another thread has made me think about buyins and stack sizes at low and micro NL tables online.stack sizes:when first starting out i always looked for tables with nobody too high over the buy in, and ideally with players holding no more than 2/3 of the buy in. my logic, which i now think was weak at the time, was that these are probably crappy players who, if they get lucky, can't hurt me too badly by doubling up.now i look for a nearly-full table and actually look for people at or above the buy in. it's pretty easy to double up at NLHE at low and micro limits, and the people with those big stacks are the ones i want to have around. last night i nearly tripled my full buy in off of one player who kept reloading, working up a decent sized stack, then losing it to me on boneheaded plays.the verdict: i want more money on that table, because i intend to leave with it.buy ins:i think it's always to your advantage to buy in for the max amount at any table. if you happen to be holding the nuts, you can sometimes double up through someone holding an ignorant straight, a weaker flush, or two pair to your set. this happens so often it's just senseless to come in short stacked.the verdict: always buy in at the max if you're able.thoughts?

I agree for the most part.However, usually the players with the most money, ARE the better players. This is much more the case in cash games then at the beginning of tourneys, when the big stacks are the suckers that got lucky off other suckers.

[CobaltBlue 662]

Personally, I still stick by the "liking to have everyone covered" strategy. If the max buy-in is $100, I'm loving a table where everyone else has $80.