www.flopturnriver.com

Poker Forum

Over 1,246,000 Posts!

Already Registered? Username: Password: Remember Forgot Password
Tweet

Rebuying In Ring Games

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display Modes

Legendash

06-28-2004, 12:42 PM Post subject: Rebuying In Ring Games

#1 (permalink)

Full House

Join Date: May 2004

Location: Crypto 6max 100NL

Posts: 611

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.

"[This theory] is only useful for helping to calculate your luck odds. If you have a good read that you have a numerical advantage against your opponent, that your hand is "luckier"..."

Copyright, Youngdro 2007.

Play for FREE and practice your game at...

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

Yeah

06-28-2004, 02:50 PM

#2 (permalink)

Join Date: Jun 2004

Posts: 70

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.

offset

06-28-2004, 03:13 PM

#3 (permalink)

Join Date: Jun 2004

Posts: 2

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!

johnnyawe

06-28-2004, 04:36 PM

#4 (permalink)

Full House

Join Date: Apr 2004

Location: San Francisco

Posts: 1,064

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.

Yeah

06-28-2004, 04:43 PM

#5 (permalink)

Join Date: Jun 2004

Posts: 70

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNatural

From the money management perspective, I kind of like playing until I go bust.

Huh????????

Atleast say play until you double up or something.

-brain-(thinking)

'I can't wait until I get to play cards tonight' 'Ok, I will only play cards tonight until I go BUST' - 'Alright, I busted' - 'I'll be back tomarrow, and set the same limit - BUST'

Sounds like you won't be playing very long if you play until you go bust each time.

Humphrind

06-28-2004, 05:12 PM

#6 (permalink)

4-of-a-Kind

Join Date: May 2004

Location: Kansas City

Posts: 1,887

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeah

I can see exactly what The Natural is saying. I will go into a room with no expectations except to play my best game. the limits are 1. Until I'm done playing. or 2. Until I have $0 in the room.

I will never re-buy, because I'm afraid of playing on tilt. If I go bust in a room (or lose enough money that I need to buy back in) I will usually play a very aggressive game. Too aggressive, and lose more.

It's a vicious cycle that I avoid by never re-buying. If I go bust in a room, and still feel good, I will find another room and start again.

I don't know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway.
Whatever it is...
I'm against it.

Fnord

06-28-2004, 05:18 PM

#7 (permalink)

Moderator

Join Date: Dec 2003

Location: I'll Do You Like A Truck

Posts: 19,333

Fnord is an unknown quantity at this point

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBvge-c2_Xg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-Xz8aLuD7Y

Yeah

06-28-2004, 05:45 PM

#8 (permalink)

Join Date: Jun 2004

Posts: 70

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.

johnnyawe

06-28-2004, 08:50 PM

#9 (permalink)

Full House

Join Date: Apr 2004

Location: San Francisco

Posts: 1,064

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yeah

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheNatural

From the money management perspective, I kind of like playing until I go bust.

Huh????????

Atleast say play until you double up or something.

Yeah,

I used a poor choice of words. Instead of the word "playing" in my statement above, insert the words "not rebuying". I try to leave a table after I double or triple up, depending on the quality of the other players at that point.

In fact, I started a thread a while back about the need to leave a table after you've built your stack up to a certain point.

Toasty

06-28-2004, 09:54 PM

#10 (permalink)

4-of-a-Kind

Join Date: Apr 2004

Location: England UK

Posts: 1,522

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

Poker is all about the long long long long long long long term . . .
Barney's back . . . back again . . .

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 12:28 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

Rebuying In Ring Games

Play for FREE and practice your game at...