18 replies to this topic

[fckthis]

My local B&Ms spread 1/2NL, 100min, 200max. Fairly standard. My question is, when I play (which has not be often lately), buying in for 200, gives you no more advantages then if I were to buy in for 100. In the sense of, most people at the table have 100-150 when they sit down to play.

So whats the advantage, if any, of buying in for max, in most games?

[Scott3705]

It's easier to get to a 200BB stack which is much more common at a live game than an online game. Even if most people are buying in for 50BB's, it doesn't mean that the stacks are going to stay that small.

[MasterLJ]

The theory is this...

If you are a winning player (definition: You make good decisions more often than your opponents) then you win more by having the most on the table you can possibly have.

[DonkSlayer]

Generally, LJ has it right fckthis. However, a lot of times when I'm playing online the average stack is notably lower than the max buyin, so you can get away with buying in for that.

[NoSup4U]

When people buy in for less than the maximum, I immediately sterotype them as weak tight, and go after them mercilessly until I find out differently. If you are conservative at all, I don't suggest buying in for less than the max just because people will play you more aggresively.

If you don't mind this, then buy in for whatever you want. I personally hate short stacks of any kind, because its much harder to know if they're shoving their money in with a big hand, or they just don't feel they have enough money to fold so they're shoving in...

Mark

[fckthis]

See the thing is, whenever I buy in to the game, usually no one has more than 300, especially if has just started. I try to stack people quickly, and am generally loose, calling raises with alot of weird hands. I just think for me, the fullbuyins theory to bankroll management doesnt effect the game I play, just because the live game is different from the online version of it.

You see, if we essentially say we need 20-25 buyins for the game, then truthfully the bankroll is cut in half to play the same game, but has just as much (havent really delved into this logic yet) earning potenial, just because the amount of money on the table is still the same, and you are not at a big disadvantage.

I dont really know if Im making sense, but I guess being blized for 3 days str8 might have an effect.

[NoSup4U]

I dont really know if Im making sense, but I guess being blized for 3 days str8 might have an effect.

[socalpoker_j]

I agree with the concept that MasterLJ describes. I believe Barry Greenstein addresses this issue... in Ace on the River.

[jjgoldy5]

You can buy in for the full amount, or a bit short, but there are different strategies for each.

Full buy-in = You are looking to make the most profit by outplaying your opponents with a variety of hands

Short = You are looking to take advantage of other players neglecting their implied odds against your aggression, (i.e. calling raises with drawing hands, when they have little to no implied odds because of your short stack)


You can profit with either style, as for which is the most profitable,
it all depends on your style, talent level, and the table you are sitting at.

[subsin]

i like to buy-in not with a full stack, it makes you a target by the other players, and other big stacks are going to try to push you around, you can then get all ur money in with a big hand

[A10WartHog2]

Always buy in for the Full amount....I HATE WELFARE STACKS

[fckthis]

Always buy in for the Full amount....I HATE WELFARE STACKS

Hence why its easy for welfarers to play.

[Fnava621]

listen to the circuit go into the archieves at cardplayer...listen to the one with gabe something and haralobos they talk about this \

[Scott3705]

Hence why its easy for welfarers to play.

Welfare stacks can get a lot of loose preflop calls, but there is more money to be made in having deep stacks catching sets than getting loose preflopo calls w/ smaller edges.

[fckthis]

Well I tested the theory somewhat in my last session. I think you need to have 3-5 buyins handy, because losing a pot, essentially puts u on a short stack of 10-20BBs, which isnt enough to play with. I see why playing with a full buyin is beneficial, but I also see why starting short is also beneficial.

[Blkhwk1]

A couple thoughts. What do you think?

Buy in for about the same amount as you would if you were playing the equivalent stakes at limit?

Buy in for an amount that is about the avg. stack size at the table?

[shpaget]

I always buy-in for the maximum (and I'm willing to bet you and I play at the same casino).


Here's my thinking - I'm better than most of these guys...I'm going to outplay a random guy more often than the other way around...having the extra dough, even if everyone else at the table has bought in for $100 (which happened to me a few weeks ago when we formed a new table), I can bully people, and, if I do get sucked out, I still have an average stack...(psychologically, there's a difference between using the $100 left on your table and going to your wallet for another $100).

But the main reason I want $200 is MOST times I will be at the table with at least two players over $200...and several over $150...and I want to maximize my chances of doubling up.

The last 5 times I've played I have doubled up (or close to it) within half hour (once on the 2nd hand, another on the 5th hand)...and doubling from 200-400 is so much nicer than from 100-200.

I always have at least another $200 behind if things get really stupid - cool thing is, so far, I have never had to go to my wallet after sitting at a table at my favourite B&M.

[fckthis]

I always buy-in for the maximum (and I'm willing to bet you and I play at the same casino).
Here's my thinking - I'm better than most of these guys...I'm going to outplay a random guy more often than the other way around...having the extra dough, even if everyone else at the table has bought in for $100 (which happened to me a few weeks ago when we formed a new table), I can bully people, and, if I do get sucked out, I still have an average stack...(psychologically, there's a difference between using the $100 left on your table and going to your wallet for another $100).

But the main reason I want $200 is MOST times I will be at the table with at least two players over $200...and several over $150...and I want to maximize my chances of doubling up.

The last 5 times I've played I have doubled up (or close to it) within half hour (once on the 2nd hand, another on the 5th hand)...and doubling from 200-400 is so much nicer than from 100-200.

I always have at least another $200 behind if things get really stupid - cool thing is, so far, I have never had to go to my wallet after sitting at a table at my favourite B&M.

I think we do play at the same casino.

[Naismith]

For some reason, I just posted strategy advice in the General section and felt the cleansing need to come back here.

Anyhow, I have experience on both sides of this coin. I, personally, always buy in for as much as I can. In one of the live games I play in, there is no maximum. It's kind of stupid in that one of the guys who runs it is an idiot and after he loses his stack for the tenth time, he just buys back in for enough to cover the table. I think that's similar to getting your tail kicked for three quarters in a football game only to make it 0-0 again because you also run the league. However, it does put a lot of money in the hands of the biggest donator.

I like to have a big stack, though, and I will take chances early on that might not mathematically be perfect in order to get big since my edge is much larger when I have a huge stack. I like to see a lot of flops and mix it up when people are a lot less comfortable post-flop, so it's certainly more important to me to have chips in front of me. Were I playing 1-2, I would like to be in the 400-500 range early on to be really effective in my style. If I started at a half stack, not only do I have a much greater distance to cover, I'm effectively tightening up my play because it's easy to get crippled or hooked to a hand with so few chips.

As far as playing short stacked, I personally hate it. I don't have the patience for it. But it isn't just for idiots looking for a big score. In fact, the most profitable game I've ever seen for a short stack is the 10-10 and 20-20 NL games on FCP. I'm not sure if the players there just assume every short stack is just some idiot trying to double up their entire bankroll or what, but you can get big fast without putting yourself in bad shape at any point.

I'm fairly certain this was in no way helpful to anyone but myself.