www.flopturnriver.com

Poker Forum

Over 1,246,000 Posts!

Already Registered? Username: Password: Remember Forgot Password
Tweet

Buy-in amounts for NLHE ring games (min vs. max)?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display Modes

Phew72

12-24-2004, 01:03 PM Post subject: Buy-in amounts for NLHE ring games (min vs. max)?

#1 (permalink)

3-of-a-Kind

Join Date: Nov 2004

Location: UK

Posts: 100

I've been playing on William Hill's $0.50/$1 no limit Texas Hold'em ring game tables for a few months now with varying degrees of success.

I have a question about how much I should be buying into these games with. The minimum amount is $20 and maximum is $100.

I've read on this site and others that you should only ever buy into ring games with the maximum amount because:
a) It gives a psychological advantage over small stacks; and
b) You can maximise your winnings (going all in with $20 can only get you a return of up to $40 (heads up) whereas $100...).

However, I have also read that buying in with a lesser amount is advantageous because:
a) If everything goes tits up, you only lose a smaller percentage of your bankroll; and
b) If you have succeeded in winning 2 or 3 times your buy-in amount, you can protect those winnings by leaving that particular table and buying in elsewhere.

Personally, I began by only buying in with the minimum amount ($20) and soon found myself getting bullied around. Now I buy in with around ($35) and find that sufficient to begin building with.

I know that the buy-in amounts vs. blind levels on Empire Poker are different to William Hill and the level I play at on William Hill is the lowest available for no limit.

So, what does the FTR gang think is the best buy-in amount - min., max. or somewhere in between?

Play for FREE and practice your game at...

Join the FTR Poker Forum to disable these banners and start posting!

12-24-2004, 01:27 PM

#2 (permalink)

Guest

Posts: n/a

I always buy in for max.

1. Because I consider myself a good player so I will maximise my hopefully ineviatble winnings.
2. Like you said, it gives you the psychological advantage.

I think you should buy in for the max if you are confident that you are better than most players at this level.

But if you are not sure whether you have the ability to beat a table or not you should buy in for less.

Lucid

12-25-2004, 06:30 AM

#3 (permalink)

Straight

Join Date: Nov 2004

Posts: 142

I think that there are advantages to both buying in with a short stack and buying in with a big stack. You have already mentioned two of the biggest reasons for buying in large but there is one more. If you get in a situation where it is you with top pair or two pair and you are trying to scare your opponent out of a draw then you need a large stack to make a big enough bet to make it unprofitable for him to call. If you have already spent most of your stack pre-flop and on the flop then you might not be able to make a large enough wager to scare him away.

The things that make having a short stack advantageous are the very same things that make it disadvantageous. What that means is:

a) Since you are not given as much respect with a short stack people are more likely to call you with weaker cards than they would if you had a large stack so you are in a greater position to trap people.

b) There certain times when you have big cards and your opponent has a draw. What you want is to make the bet big so that it will be unprofitable for him to call. If he does call, however, and a card lands that might make his hand then he will benefit by making you pay to see whether he has the hand. You could just fold every turn or river that had a possible flush strait but you would be subject to folding to a bluff or an inferior pair/pairs. If, however, your stack is just large enough to make it unprofitable for him but not large enough for to get any more money out of you if he makes his hand then you get the best of both worlds.

Another time this can be an advantage is when there are several people to a flop or turn and you get an open-ended strait or flush draw. If two or three people call in front of you and you have the draw then if your stack is small you can call all-in with an amount which is profitable because you don’t have to call the full bet. Of course you also sacrifice the implied odds when you are no longer able to bet after the river if you hand is made.

So in my opinion there are advantages and disadvantages to both big and short stacks, which if you apply the right strategy can make either one profitable. Most of the poker books strategies are geared towards large stacks, which makes it easier to study and learn how to play well. You see alot of bozos playing with short stacks but they usually play them very poorly. If you could develop a successful short stack strategy I bet you could make it quite profitable because people wouldn't know how to play against you.

Latest Poker News
KoRnholio	05-26-2012, 03:08 PM Australia Legalized Online Poker coming up in next 6 to 12 Months
According to an email sent out by Mark Bryan, a gaming analyst at Merrill Lynch, the Australian government plans to legalize online poker sometime in the next six to 12 months. This move will coincide ... more at Poker Blogs »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:32 PM.

Play Texas Holdem Online, Online Texas Holdem Strategy, & Poker Forum

This is not a gambling website.

Poker Forum

Over 1,246,000 Posts!

Poker Forum

Beginners Circle

Buy-in amounts for NLHE ring games (min vs. max)?

Play for FREE and practice your game at...