Rebuying In Ring Games

I just started playing ring games (with the free $15 at the Gaming Club, thanks for the link jmrogers)

Anyway i was wondering if people always had the most chips at the table they could.

I mean if you go to a table with $10 and lose some hands, how low do you go before you bring in some more chips, i can't see any advantage in playing with a short stack so i guess you buy in below $8 or so.

I think it depends on what game you are playing . Having a semi-shorter stack in limit games wouldn't pose too big of a problem, just as long as you don't have to split a pot because you ran out of chips.

Eg.

You have AA

Flop comes A 6 3

You hit your set and someone else hits their lower (66) set. Yet someone else has AK, (hey, it's a hypo)and calls all the way down.

You run out of chips on the turn, so you have a limited profit on that hand. Don't let that happen.

In NL or PL, I would always perfer to bring the maximum amount to the table. This can give you a clear advantage over shorter stacks, and you can have a big impact with the larger stacks when you are in pots with them. Like I said, I perfer to bring the maximum to the table, but sometimes it doesn't work out. Infact, having a smaller stack can entice the larger stacks to call your bets even when they are a huge dog.(because they think you are desperate to double up). That said, if I had my choice I would bring as much to the table as possible.

So if I could bring 5,000 to a 2/4 NLHE game, I would. Of course, assuming I had the 5k to bring with me.

I am a firm believer is having at leat 1/2 if not 2/3 of the max allowed at any time, minimum. If you've lost $15 at a $25 buyin PL game, lets say, because of a couple flakey calls or a bad river card, and have $10, then you get AA or a nut flush hand shortly thereafter, you want chips to get in the pot ir order to recoup your earlier losses. I do not understand people who play play play with $5-10, then they go all in, and double up with a good hand, but only to $10-20. If you only get one great perfect nut hand in a session, you want the most chips you can have sitting in front of you at that moment. I generally rebuy if I dip below $15 in such a game. Just recently I did that in a PL$25 game when I hit about $10. I saw a few more hands, then got pocket 6s in the SB. The flop came 66J. I bet a dollar, to test the waters, another called, and the button goes all in for $8 (short stacked). I call, the other caller calls. Turn comes a Q or something, and I bet $10, with the other caller then going all in for $12 or so ( he had about $22 at the start). It was his two pairs, vs full house, vs my quads, and I went up to about $65. (There was a large preflop raise, that I called somewhat out of character. Glad I did!) If I'd still had only $10 or so, I would have only made about $25, instead of $45, and I likely would not have called the raise with 66 to begin with. See you at the tables!

I'm glad somebody brought this up. I was going to start a topic on this too. I have no idea. I can think of pros and cons to both.

On one hand, it seems logical for a skilled player to always have a full stack. This gives you a chance to take down a huge pot on every hand.

From the money management perspective, I kind of like playing until I go bust. I try to always have 10x buy-in in bankroll, because I figure: "what are the odds I will go bust 10 times in a row?" If I do rebuys during play, it kind of ruins that philosophy.

*Last edited by Fnord on Mon, 28 Jun 2004, 1:54pm; edited 1 time in total*

In limit games I always keep a bunch of chips in front of me. Both because I don't ever want to be close to running out and I want to send a clear message to the other players at the table that I'm not some fish that's going to bust out and leave.

For No-Limit, I try to stay as close to the max buy-in as possible.

so basically you set no goals, except this "I'll play, but as soon as I bust I' done.

"I'll work, until I get fired"

"I'll diversify my portfolio, but when all the stocks go belly-up, I'm done"

when it should be

"I'll work my ass off I want to be in the top 10% of the [ insert occ. here]. Then I will strive to move to [insert new occ. here] - or something of that sort

"I will diversiy my portfolio, and once I reach a gain of 12%, I'm switching over to fixed income for the rest of the year"

or

"My portfolio is headed for long-term, each quarter we will re-examine my stocks, and make any changes as needed"

I am sure you can find many other examples.

I wouldn't want to play with the intent of quitting when I bust out of my buyin. I set a goal I want to achieve(that isn't unrealistic). If I bust out at the table, I can re-evaluate what I did. I am not saying I don't put a limit on my losses, I do. But if I went into the game with my stragegy(taken to somewhat of an extream) as "when I bust I'm done" I wouldn't be done until I busted, whenever that was. So that's what I would play till, then why would I care? I just have a different attitude, one where I focus on reaching positive goals.

I don't like your approach one bit.

hehe made me chuckle, I know what you mean't though.

Poker Forum

Join Our Poker Community!

Poker Forum Index

Beginners Circle

Rebuying In Ring Games

Poker Forum Index

Beginners Circle

Rebuying In Ring Games