Max vs No Max buyin

Apart from the obvious, what's the difference between the two types of tables? Even at micro stakes is it best to avoid no max buyin tables?

What site has no max buy-in tables for no-limit? That seems kinda crazy. I've heard of some B&M casinos that run $2-$5 nl with no cap on the buy-in, but never online.

Ultimate Bet.

bankroll requirements dictate a buy in amount. What's your bankroll? do you have 20 buy ins? Ultimate bet may allow unlimited buy ins but your bankroll doesn't.

what stakes does UB offer no max buyin? Ive played there at 10nl, 25nl, 50nl and 100nl and have never seen that.

Way to kill the game, to offer no max buyin tables!

you mean no max buyin limit tables

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

bankroll requirements dictate a buy in amount. What's your bankroll? do you have 20 buy ins? Ultimate bet may allow unlimited buy ins but your bankroll doesn't.

BR is about 35 buyins right now at 2NL. I was curious about the pros and cons about playing at a No-Max table, there are certainly no $0.10 buyins there but I was thinking that the play could be harder?

Originally Posted by Bode

what stakes does UB offer no max buyin? Ive played there at 10nl, 25nl, 50nl and 100nl and have never seen that.

2NL
5NL
10NL
50NL

Don't know about higher. And Jack, it's definitely No Limit tables. I don't play limit (yet).

sorry man, youre definitly talking about LIMIT holdem tables. There is no site that im aware of that offers no max buyin for no limit, definitely not UB.

no bode, he is right.. i just looked:



the idea is pretty interesting, but i would stay away if you're a beginner. playing 300, 400, 500+ bbs deep is very different than 100 or less bbs. also, as tj said, your bankroll is very important here. you shouldn't buy-in 1000 bbs deep is your br is only 20 buyins for that level.

Just buy in for 100bb and play normally wtf is this even a question for

They have them at UB, they are No Limit and for the most part, only play at the lowest stakes.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Just buy in for 100bb and play normally wtf is this even a question for

Because it's a situation I'm not familiar with and was wanting some advice on if/when I could play at a no-max table and what (if any) alterations I would need to make because of the relative stack sizes.

Originally Posted by Andrew

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Just buy in for 100bb and play normally wtf is this even a question for

Because it's a situation I'm not familiar with and was wanting some advice on if/when I could play at a no-max table and what (if any) alterations I would need to make because of the relative stack sizes.

If you buy in for 100bb then it's the same situation you normally play. The only stack size that matters is the effective stack size in any hand, and if you buy in for 100bb, it'll never be higher than that unless you win some pots.

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by Andrew

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Just buy in for 100bb and play normally wtf is this even a question for

Because it's a situation I'm not familiar with and was wanting some advice on if/when I could play at a no-max table and what (if any) alterations I would need to make because of the relative stack sizes.

If you buy in for 100bb then it's the same situation you normally play. The only stack size that matters is the effective stack size in any hand, and if you buy in for 100bb, it'll never be higher than that unless you win some pots.

Ah, now that makes sense. I guess I was thinking about people who try to bully a table my buying in for more but it would still effectively be as if they'd just won the money instead. Thanks for clearing that up.

Originally Posted by Andrew

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by Andrew

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Just buy in for 100bb and play normally wtf is this even a question for

Because it's a situation I'm not familiar with and was wanting some advice on if/when I could play at a no-max table and what (if any) alterations I would need to make because of the relative stack sizes.

If you buy in for 100bb then it's the same situation you normally play. The only stack size that matters is the effective stack size in any hand, and if you buy in for 100bb, it'll never be higher than that unless you win some pots.

Ah, now that makes sense. I guess I was thinking about people who try to bully a table my buying in for more but it would still effectively be as if they'd just won the money instead. Thanks for clearing that up.

The part in bold is a very big misconception about cash game play. While it can be true in tournaments, it's totally irrelevant in cash games.

Suppose there are eight $100 stacks at a $0.50/1 full ring table, and then someone buys in for $20000. He can't bully anyone, do you see why?

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by Andrew

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by Andrew

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Just buy in for 100bb and play normally wtf is this even a question for

Because it's a situation I'm not familiar with and was wanting some advice on if/when I could play at a no-max table and what (if any) alterations I would need to make because of the relative stack sizes.

If you buy in for 100bb then it's the same situation you normally play. The only stack size that matters is the effective stack size in any hand, and if you buy in for 100bb, it'll never be higher than that unless you win some pots.

Ah, now that makes sense. I guess I was thinking about people who try to bully a table my buying in for more but it would still effectively be as if they'd just won the money instead. Thanks for clearing that up.

The part in bold is a very big misconception about cash game play. While it can be true in tournaments, it's totally irrelevant in cash games.

Suppose there are eight $100 stacks at a $0.50/1 full ring table, and then someone buys in for $20000. He can't bully anyone, do you see why?

Because the blinds are small compared to the average chip size and there's no need to get into a coin-flip/marginal situation with this guy? Like another thread talking about a home game where a player raised it to $5 no matter what cards he had. The blind structure (unchanged) allows the relatively smaller stacks to wait for a good hand against a super aggressive big stack. But in a tournament they are more worried about being blinded off.

Originally Posted by Andrew

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by Andrew

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Originally Posted by Andrew

Originally Posted by spoonitnow

Just buy in for 100bb and play normally wtf is this even a question for

Because it's a situation I'm not familiar with and was wanting some advice on if/when I could play at a no-max table and what (if any) alterations I would need to make because of the relative stack sizes.

If you buy in for 100bb then it's the same situation you normally play. The only stack size that matters is the effective stack size in any hand, and if you buy in for 100bb, it'll never be higher than that unless you win some pots.

Ah, now that makes sense. I guess I was thinking about people who try to bully a table my buying in for more but it would still effectively be as if they'd just won the money instead. Thanks for clearing that up.

The part in bold is a very big misconception about cash game play. While it can be true in tournaments, it's totally irrelevant in cash games.

Suppose there are eight $100 stacks at a $0.50/1 full ring table, and then someone buys in for $20000. He can't bully anyone, do you see why?

Because the blinds are small compared to the average chip size and there's no need to get into a coin-flip/marginal situation with this guy?

No, because any given player can still only lose up to $100 per hand. It's effectively the same as if he had bought in for $100 just like everybody else.

Things change though, when somebody doubles up and is now sitting with $200. Let's say a donkey de-stacks you via a 2-outer and you're miffed. At an unlimited table you could now buy in for $200 to match the donkey's stack. I suppose this could easily get really dangerous if you aren't used to playing deeper than 100BB.

Darned

internet dropouts.

Mr $20,000 can only win $100 off any one person, and can only lose $100 in a hand.

Mr $100 can only win $100 off any one person, and can only lose $100 in a hand.

The rest is in your head, dont fall for it.

Think of it this way, all the $20,000 guy has done is save himself reloading if he loses an AI, unless you let his mind games affect you.

1000 BB effective stacks would make my brain overheat. It would also a be a very long, mostly boring, and horrible war. We'd stumble through variance until quads v. straight flush hand occured (assuming the guy has brains).

"Mr $20,000 can only win $100 off any one person, and can only lose $100 in a hand.

Mr $100 can only win $100 off any one person, and can only lose $100 in a hand. "

Not really, bjsaust. Since it's a no-max table, the other players may well choose to buy in for more than $100. If I decide to play a no max table, and there are several players packing more than 100 BB, it gives me some motivation to up my buy-in to exceed the table's biggest stack, so I have a chance at felting him.

Now, let's say everyone at the table has big stacks, $200 or more for .50/1.00 blinds, if I choose to buy in for only $100, I'm the only one at the table that can be felted by any other player. You can't tell me there's no psychological effect, there.

Andrew, I don't think anyone has really tried to answer your question. I'm hardly an expert, but here's what I think:

If you're the best player at the table, it gives you an advantage to have the largest stack in a ring game. There may be a small psychological benefit, the intimidation factor, but most importantly, your ability to felt any player at the table means you have maximized your profit potential should you hit a magnificent hand against a strong second best hand.

If you're not the best player at the table, you should consider that being able to felt any other player at the table also means that they can all double up through you.

If you play smart at the micro levels, even a no max room, the fact that it's no max likely won't make much of a difference, in my opinion, as long as your buy-in is within your bankroll.

bjsaust is spot on

if you only have $100 to wager, you can only win the money off others who can also only wager up to $100 against you. you can't win or lose more than $100 (actually, you can win more than $100 if you are in a multipot and you win it, but you cannot lose more than $100) in a hand.

For a nicer explanation, see James Bond's Casino Royale. The scene where Bond first plays poker, you see the guy wants to raise 20,000 or some other obscene amount he did not start the hand with in front of him. The dealer tells him "table stakes, sir". This is what table stakes means.

if you have $20,000 at the table, you only have to regard the shorter stack(s) in the hand. this will be your max win/loss

Quoting that wiki...

A player may bet no more money than he or she had on the table at the beginning of that hand and conesquently can not go back to their pocket for more money once a hand is dealt.

Jack, That's not relevant at all to this discussion... that's more like saying, if you're sitting there with 50BB all game, and are suddenly dealt AA and flop a set, you can't reach into your pocket to add 50BB more to your stack in the middle of a hand (exactly what that guy in the movie tried to do. He happened to have his car keys on the table, so they decided to let them bet his car).

Kookabura is right in that if it's a no-max buyin table, people can just keep buying in for more (between hands of course, ldo) until effective stacks ARE insanely high. Maximum buy-ins are the norm online, but not so much in live poker I believe. I quote from a poker mag, http://www.inside-edge-mag.co.uk:

Mekalainas goes on to explain how his all-in plays differ when there is a minimum buy-in: ‘On occasion, I like to play the $5/$10 no-limit hold’em game at the Wynn in Las Vegas. The minimum buy-in is $500. The maximum is whatever you can put down on the table. My initial buy-in is typically $500. When I sit down, I am often up against several stacks in excess of $15,000. The minimum most players buy in for is $1,000.

edit: lol @ censorship

You guys are mistaking the fact that sitting with only 100BB against a guy with $20K can do to you. What if he raised 10BB every time he wanted to play? What if he ran 30/30 and opened 15BB? Some of us know how to play this kind of player, but he can basically just play for stacks as often as possible. Lets Use the AA vs 72o for example. 72o is about 8:1, so if he gets your AA all in with any two cards, he's going to stack you 1 time out 9, and you will lose. If your willing to get away after doubleing or tripling up, then you can easily profit off of this stack, but long term you will lose if you stay at the table, this is an advantage for the bigger stack, but it's only advantage.

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

bankroll requirements dictate a buy in amount. What's your bankroll? do you have 20 buy ins? Ultimate bet may allow unlimited buy ins but your bankroll doesn't.

QFT

Originally Posted by eugmac

Quoting that wiki...

A player may bet no more money than he or she had on the table at the beginning of that hand and conesquently can not go back to their pocket for more money once a hand is dealt.

Jack, That's not relevant at all to this discussion... that's more like saying, if you're sitting there with 50BB all game, and are suddenly dealt AA and flop a set, you can't reach into your pocket to add 50BB more to your stack in the middle of a hand (exactly what that guy in the movie tried to do. He happened to have his car keys on the table, so they decided to let them bet his car).

Truly? Let me try my hand at quoting that same article too

In poker, table stakes limit the amount a player can win or lose in the play of a single hand. A player may bet no more money than he or she had on the table at the beginning of that hand and conesquently can not go back to their pocket for more money once a hand is dealt. In between hands however, a player is free to rebuy or addon so long as their entire stack after the rebuy or addon does not exceed the maximum buy-in.

Now if there is no max buyin, you still cannot lose more than you started with in any given hand, can you? On the other hand, the dude who started with $5,000,000 still cannot lose more than $50 in a hand if he's in that hand up against a guy who bought in for $50, and also cannot lose more than $200 in a hand if in that hand he's up against the dude who bought in for $50 and some other dude who bought in for $200
Obviously, or at least I think it is, the dudes who start with $50 and $200 in any given hand, also cannot lose more in a hand than $50 and $200 in that hand, respectively


Or can they? Maybe they can lose more than what they start with if they are suddenly dealt AA and flop a set, and get cracked by runners

yeah no shit. the point is: you're sitting at a max buy-in table with 100BB, and suddenly some fish decides to sit down with 500BB. you feel like you want to be able to cover him, so you are free to go ahead and buy more chips to match his stack.

still has nothing to do with being able to only bet what you have in front of you at the beginning of a hand. the OP was asking what the difference was between the two formats.

Obviously, if you are not familiar/used to deep stacks, stay the hell away

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

You guys are mistaking the fact that sitting with only 100BB against a guy with $20K can do to you. What if he raised 10BB every time he wanted to play? What if he ran 30/30 and opened 15BB?

You'd just fold all but your premium hands (since his bet sizing kills implied odds), and find it really easy to get your whole stack in while being way ahead of his range. What's not to love about that?

The ninth time it happens and he takes your 400BB stack or If I am him and your folding a ton until you play back, I won't go past that point knowing your waiting on premiums, remember, a 30/30 is not stacking of with most hands.

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

You guys are mistaking the fact that sitting with only 100BB against a guy with $20K can do to you. What if he raised 10BB every time he wanted to play? What if he ran 30/30 and opened 15BB? Some of us know how to play this kind of player, but he can basically just play for stacks as often as possible. Lets Use the AA vs 72o for example. 72o is about 8:1, so if he gets your AA all in with any two cards, he's going to stack you 1 time out 9, and you will lose. If your willing to get away after doubleing or tripling up, then you can easily profit off of this stack, but long term you will lose if you stay at the table, this is an advantage for the bigger stack, but it's only advantage.

This is what I was thinking when I mentioned about bullying at a table. I was actually surprised when people here were talking about the fact that being 100bb versus 400bb or even 2000bb would have no effect to how the game might be played.

Originally Posted by Andrew

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

You guys are mistaking the fact that sitting with only 100BB against a guy with $20K can do to you. What if he raised 10BB every time he wanted to play? What if he ran 30/30 and opened 15BB? Some of us know how to play this kind of player, but he can basically just play for stacks as often as possible. Lets Use the AA vs 72o for example. 72o is about 8:1, so if he gets your AA all in with any two cards, he's going to stack you 1 time out 9, and you will lose. If your willing to get away after doubleing or tripling up, then you can easily profit off of this stack, but long term you will lose if you stay at the table, this is an advantage for the bigger stack, but it's only advantage.

This is what I was thinking when I mentioned about bullying at a table. I was actually surprised when people here were talking about the fact that being 100bb versus 400bb or even 2000bb would have no effect to how the game might be played.

I've actually played these tables. Generally, villains buy-in for 100 BB. Occasionally, someone will sit down with 500BB, but rarely and never $2k.

The play is the same as the other tables at this level, and buying in for 100BB and playing your ABC game works fine. Try to sit down to the left of a huge stack if you're worried. Then duck his action if you have a marginal hand.

I don't play them, as a general rule, but more for table management reasons. I reload often to max buy-in, and I multitable. So suddenly I reload and find I have $450 at the table and can't open any others. So I quit that table, free up my roll, and play the normal ones.

But don't fear them. The villains there suck just as bad as elsewhere on the site.

Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer

see James Bond's Casino Royale. The scene where Bond first plays poker, you see the guy wants to raise 20,000 or some other obscene amount he did not start the hand with in front of him. The dealer tells him "table stakes, sir". This is what table stakes means.

The poker in Casino Royale is hilarious for a multitude of reasons. Villain holds the 2nd-to-nuts, and in the hopes of winning the pissing contest against Bond, puts his car keys on the table. The dealer reminds of "table stakes"- you cannot wager what you don't already have in front of you. To this, Bond replies something like:

"C'mon, just let him do it..."

Is that not the tell of the f***ing century? (the villain still pays off, hilariously).

Originally Posted by Trainer_jyms

The ninth time it happens and he takes your 400BB stack or If I am him and your folding a ton until you play back, I won't go past that point knowing your waiting on premiums, remember, a 30/30 is not stacking of with most hands.

you're arguing martingale now...

of course he's "favourite" to win your $100 more often than you get his $20000 even if he's playing terribly bad. But you only have to get his $20000 more frequently than 0,5% to be better off!

This is great theory, but I've never seen anything like this happen in practice. None of 2,000+ BB stacks I've played against tried to bully. And rarely (maybe 1 in 20 villains) even buys in for more than 200 BB's.

To hijack the thread back to the original question, playing these no-max tables with your normal style is fine (as long as you're a winning player at that level on the regular tables), buying in for 100 BB's. In the rare instance you find a huge stack, be wary of bullying, but keep playing your TAGG style and you'll be ine.

Just for fun and entirely unrelated

PokerStars Game #15289054450: HORSE (Omaha Hi/Lo Limit, $5/$10) - 2008/02/14 - 19:05:03 (ET)
Table 'Hercynia' 8-max Seat #5 is the button
Seat 1: wsop06igo ($359 in chips)
Seat 2: StatusUp ( $100043.75 in chips)
Seat 3: nico67 ($131 in chips)
Seat 4: Dr Shaft ($217 in chips)
Seat 5: morten ($347.25 in chips)
Seat 6: Rendall 11 ($162 in chips)
Seat 7: kinganchovyy ($471.25 in chips)
Seat 8: flyingnoob ($294.75 in chips)
Rendall 11: posts small blind $2
kinganchovyy: posts big blind $5
*** HOLE CARDS ***
flyingnoob: folds
wsop06igo: raises $5 to $10
StatusUp said, "s"
StatusUp: calls $10
nico67: folds
Dr Shaft: folds
morten: folds
Rendall 11: folds
kinganchovyy: folds
*** FLOP *** [Qs 6s 3d]
wsop06igo: checks
StatusUp: bets $5
wsop06igo: calls $5
*** TURN *** [Qs 6s 3d] [3c]
wsop06igo: checks
StatusUp: checks
*** RIVER *** [Qs 6s 3d 3c] [6c]
wsop06igo: checks
StatusUp: checks
*** SHOW DOWN ***
wsop06igo: shows [Ah Ad Jh Kh] (HI: two pair, Aces and Sixes)
StatusUp: mucks hand
wsop06igo collected $36 from pot
No low hand qualified
*** SUMMARY ***
Total pot $37 | Rake $1
Board [Qs 6s 3d 3c 6c]
Seat 1: wsop06igo showed [Ah Ad Jh Kh] and won ($36) with HI: two pair, Aces and Sixes
Seat 2: StatusUp mucked
Seat 3: nico67 folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 4: Dr Shaft folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 5: morten (button) folded before Flop (didn't bet)
Seat 6: Rendall 11 (small blind) folded before Flop
Seat 7: kinganchovyy (big blind) folded before Flop
Seat 8: flyingnoob folded before Flop (didn't bet)