Buy-in for half

[heatman]

In the $200 NL game at stars I've been buying in for $100 as part of my table selection strategy. This goes against conventional wisdom, which is to keep as close to the max buy-in (or more) on the table as you can. Here's my reasoning:

Benefits:

-Gives me a chance to mix it up and determine the strength of the table without putting tons of money at risk.
-Unlike the $25 table, not everyone buys in for the max. I think plunking $200 down right off the bat either says "fish" or "shark" and I don't want either one of those images right off the bat.
-I'm more willing to go all-in or call all-in with a strong hand when I've got less exposure. Its tough to put $200 into a pot when you don't know who you're up against. Its also tough to laydown a set when you're opponent goes all in with who knows what. So with less money at risk I can play more aggressively with half as much money at risk.


Disdavantages:
-If I get a sweet hand with an aggressive opponent who I know is weak, I only double up $100.
-A slight tendency for bigger stacks to threaten, but this doesn't happen very much.

As soon as I know where the strength is at the table, I load up with whatever it takes to get to max buy-in. Or if I see someone with a good stack who is overplaying or is a poor player. This can be anywhere from a couple of rounds, to a half hour or better, depending on the action.

What else am I giving up by not buying in for max right off the start?

[Grand_MasterB]

I used to do the same thing at NL tables for all the reasons you stated. But the major thing i was worried about was having to go all in against a player or players that i didnt really know that well. I figured out that this only hurts me in the long run for a couple of reasons.

First, most all in descisions are made pre-flop or most are after the flop hits the board. At this point it is unlikely that the pot odds warrant a call with A-K when you hit or something iffy like that. I realize that we call these most of the time and win with it a good percentage of the time. But other then these "iffy" all-in-call hands its really a no brainer. Middle Pair, you fold it. Top Pair not best kicker, you fold it. Set- Call. Top Two pair - call. All these no brainers are just hurting yourself by not doubling yourself through with 200 instead of 100.

Secondly, i found that the added pressure on these marginal call hands makes you a better player in the long run. You learn to deal with tougher situations and this wins you money down the line. Plus, even if you win just half of these iffy hands, wich is very probably with something like AK lets say, you are breaking even and gaining experience.

I just think that you dont really gain anything from this. You just miss out on money and opportunities to improve your game.

Not trying to destroy your strategy. I've been playin a long time and started out like this and just found it to be more of a hassle then its worth.

[Humphrind]

I used to do this all the time. I would walk into a $25 room with $10. My thought, $10 is enough. If I can't play well with this, I need to find another room.

I have learned a lot since then and I don't play ring games too often any more. However, I still see a lot of sense in this. Especially if you are playing $100 or $200 NL games. You can probably have the intimidation of a big bet without having to risk $200.

[Krapp]

I always go with max buy-in. Its preferable since more money than opps is an advantage. Side comment(s) with less chips:
(1) I have found that ppl view less chipcount = weak opp. Having a weak player perception is bad. Opps will tend to be more aggressive/loose against you since they might see you as easy money.
(2) Having less chips might give you the feeling of taking more risk (since you have less chips to begin with). I believe this extra risk taking is always bad, especially if its not how you would play normally. Any time you play "out-of-character", its bad. Of course, deceptive play, changing gears, etc is a good thing to do. Its good if thats your winning play strategy
(3) Worse yet, buyin with less could mean that person is afraid of playing with the full buy-in amount (The $$ is too scarey looking). They might tighten-up and play out-of-character. If thats the issue drop-down to the next highest NL table and buyin max there.
(4) Now playing differently based on your chip count (especially if you have more chips than opps) is a good thing to do. However, if your short stacked on a table-game, its a bad thing to do. Although in tournies, betting aggressively (when the BBs are big) is a must.
(5) If I am short stacked at a table-game, I will either quit or reload to max