$1/2 NL at a Casino...what should I buy in for?

[spoon22]

I wanted to get some opinions from you guys on what to buy in for (in this case a $1/2 NL table)...this particular casino has a $50 min. with $150 max. What is the correct reasoning here? I can see where coming in at the max automatically puts you on a solid stack. However, I can see buying in for $60ish, playing to get the hands, and letting big stacks play into you, hence traps. I can also see getting blinded and/or pushed too much to where your not a threat at the end of the day...I'm trying to find logic on this as I am heading to a Casino this weekend to play this game. Thoughts/suggestions? Also, I am taking roughly $200-250 to gamble with..

[geoffm33]

Every time this is asked the answer I've seen is to buy in for the max. You aren't maximizing your potential winnings otherwise. If you are down to $30 (from $60) and playing a monster for stacks with someone who has you covered, wouldn't you wish you had $120 (down from $150)?

[dev]

I always buy in max. I do it because I am very familiar with the types of players at the room I play. If you feel you can outplay them, do it for the most money. If you're worried about getting outplayed, go in short.

The biggest problem I have with buying in short, is it seems like gambler's logic. The whole idea that it's better to go from $50 to $200 than from $150 to $400... I just don't get it.

At foxwoods 1/2, buyins are $40-$100. You can buy in for $40, post a blind, then buy in for $100 over that, since you're below the min buy-in. So you basically start with $138. I don't go to the trouble when I'm there, but it just might be worth it.

I do see one problem. If your roll while you're there is only a couple hundred, you might want to buy in short just in case. I came up with a plan with a friend of mine who had a short roll and not much experience playing. He was naturally tight, and these games were naturally loose, so I figured this would work out. He would buy in for $50, then if he got over $100, he would ask the floor for a table change, and rebuy at a new table for $50. He would do this until he found a really good table and/or had enough for a few rebuys at max.

He actually just bought in max and tilted his money away after a $40 or so bad beat. If you try something similar, let me know how it goes.

[spoon22]

I agree with the max buy-in. However, given the amount I'm taking (around $250), I wasn't sure if it was better to go from the $50 to $200 situation...I believe I am a knowledgeable player and have played for a couple years, weekly home games (averaged over the course of the year a consistent winner) and lots of online play. I don't want to doubt myself or my play by buying in for the $50, but if I take a rough beat or two, I don't want to be left with limited funds for the rest of the trip. Is that a weak philosophy?

[Irisheyes]

Is that a weak philosophy?

Yes. If your a winning player, buy in for as much as you can. If you're not comfortable with that then play lower stakes. If you can't do that then bring more money.

[Ebene]

I have been thinking about this myself for a trip I am going on next month, and even though I am properly rolled for 200 NL, I am still going to buy-in for $100. For me, its a way to control the pot size ahead of time in wild, loose games so that donks that don't know any better can't bet too much and push me off TPTK on the flop or AK and QQ preflop assuming the pot odds are decent, but it still gives me just enough bankroll to call a raise and set camp. My goal is to double up on TPTK from a tourist, and at that point I will hopefully be able to seperate the fish from the TPs/TAGs from the LAGs and play accordingly.

But I'm of the opinion that its much better for a tight player to buy-in for 50BB if he knows he is up against a good LAG than to buy-in for 100BB, because it takes away the LAGs greatest weapon and allows you to control the pot size for your medium strong hands that the LAG would have otherwise been able to push you off of. I think this applies equally well to the descriptions I've heard of typical weekend 1/2NL B&M games, though in this case I think the money is being thrown around more at random.

I wouldn't drop down to 30BB though because you won't have proper odds to play PPs for sets and your fold equity will be such that you'll probably get pushed all in on any hand you decide to play.

[spoon22]

That's a good point Ebene. I think 50BB is comfortable.

[underminedsk]

If you aren't comfortable buying in for the max amount, then you shouldnt be sitting at that limit, period.

Also reload as often as you can to increase implied odds against deep stacks. When I play live I reload if I drop below 90% of the max buyin.

[Fnord]

If you aren't comfortable buying in for the max amount, then you shouldnt be sitting at that limit, period.

Silly. There are pretty big advanages to certain stack depths in certain games.

50bb is a nice depth for a lot of people. Will make lots of difficult decisions less difficult.

[underminedsk]

If you aren't comfortable buying in for the max amount, then you shouldnt be sitting at that limit, period.

Silly. There are pretty big advanages to certain stack depths in certain games.

Ok, so acutally I've heard rumblings about this from time to time, but so far I have yet to read about or see in action any sucessful strategy that involves buying in with shallow stacks. Can you elaborate?

[dpe8598]

50BB maybe, but no way less than fifty. Once you get to less than 50 you are talking about putting in around 10% of your money for a raise or to call a raise. This severely limits your options.

[Fnord]

50BB maybe, but no way less than fifty. Once you get to less than 50 you are talking about putting in around 10% of your money for a raise or to call a raise. This severely limits your options.

You can play profitable push or fold poker in many of these games.

50bb is kinda nice because you won't be harshy punished for felting top-pair-like hands in most pots.

Funny things happen at 100bb. Very nice depth for the nits.

At 200bb+ the game once again shifts.

The joy of being the short stack is that you always know the effective stack size going into the hand and can punish people trying to play deeper stack poker.

[sejje]

I would always buy max or at least cover the table.

Under, check some of jeffreykgb's threads (I think that's his handle), he advocated buying in short and apparently did really well.

[Fnord]

I would always buy max or at least cover the table.

If a better player sits down at an uncapped game and buys in for 1000bb, do you re-buy to cover?

[underminedsk]

50BB maybe, but no way less than fifty. Once you get to less than 50 you are talking about putting in around 10% of your money for a raise or to call a raise. This severely limits your options.

You can play profitable push or fold poker in many of these games.

50bb is kinda nice because you won't be harshy punished for felting top-pair-like hands in most pots.

Funny things happen at 100bb. Very nice depth for the nits.

At 200bb+ the game once again shifts.

The joy of being the short stack is that you always know the effective stack size going into the hand and can punish people trying to play deeper stack poker.

interesting. So you would suggest this type of strategy for mid stakes ring, where everyone is camped out for the nuts?

So you like to play for stacks (usually) with big pairs and TPTK?

So you would keep reloading up to 50xbb?

And obviously implied odds associated with calling raises with PPs goes down, (but maybe pots never really go that deep anyway?) or maybe do they go up because you know you will get paid by AA and TPTK for 50xbb most of the time, where deeper stacks might kill the action?

[Ebene]

The point I was trying to make is that certain games and certain players will force you to play TPTK for stacks, so if you are putting yourself in a game like that bring the right stack size to go AI w/ TPTK.

Imagine you are up against a player who normally plays a good game, but on certain occasions he will just reraise you all-in on the flop. He tells you exactly the situations that he is going all-in:

30% of the time he's AI w/ 2 pair or better
70% of the time he's AI w/ a straight or flush draw

If you have 100BB and you call w/ TPTK, its -EV. If you have 50BB and you call w/ TPTK, its +EV.

Obviously situations can get a lot more complicated - and it gets worse if he makes you make a decision for your entire stack w/o fully comitting himself, but the general idea is still the same.

[Irisheyes]

If you aren't comfortable buying in for the max amount, then you shouldnt be sitting at that limit, period.

Silly. There are pretty big advanages to certain stack depths in certain games.

50bb is a nice depth for a lot of people. Will make lots of difficult decisions less difficult.

I think the key word which makes underminedsk's statement correct is "comfortable".

[SteveO]

Might I also suggest that you got to poker room "early".

Start at 1 pm and do MAX buy in 150 and be prepared to rebuy.

I showed up at Taj at about 10AM one morning and all the HUGE stacks were still left over from the night before. $300 max buy in and 4 stacks are over 2K.

In Atlantic City all 1/2 NL games are 300 buy in except for very few places. I would suggest the MAX. Again, if you are not comfortable with that play craps i guess.

Playing short stacked is not particularly helpful.

Another hint, 3-4xs BB raise is usually given no respect at that level. Most preflop raises at 1/2 are 10-15 bucks and you still get a couple calls. Keep that in mind with your Buy in. If you only buy in w/ 60 and are consistently facing such a raise you quickly find yourself pot committed. That's fine if you camp out, but camping is MUCH harder live since the pace of the game is much slower and you are only playing one table.

[BankItDrew]

Those who buy-in for less than the max are doing so for one or two reasons:

1) They don't have enough money for the max, in which case they shouldn't be playing.
2) They don't have the confidence to play post flop.

[Krieg1984]

Although you have easier decisions as a short stack, if your opponents adjust, they'll have an easier time imho.

For example if the pot is 12 BB on the flop and I have TPTK I'll definitely gamble it up with someone with only 10-20BB behind. With both players at 100BB or deeper TPTK gets far scarier.

[spoon22]

"For example if the pot is 12 BB on the flop and I have TPTK I'll definitely gamble it up with someone with only 10-20BB behind. With both players at 100BB or deeper TPTK gets far scarier."

Right, and these are the situations that the "campers" with mid-stacks are waiting on...for that mentality.
There's bound to be plenty of the loose aggressive's to want to push the short stacks by the nature of the game...but you'll get the maniacs that you can double up through. Again, back to hmm..do I play tight waiting to pounce, or come in max and play my game...I really am leaning more towards the max stack. I trust my game.

[jackvance]

If you feel you can outplay them, do it for the most money. If you're worried about getting outplayed, go in short.

QFT

If you buy in at the min, you can't play the whole range of poker strategies like connectors and set hunters etc.. but yeah, they can't really be played all that well against you either ofcourse. You have to play for value a lot more. The biggest problem is ofcourse that this sucks.. and that in a multiway pot with a few highstacks, they can play their vast range of strategies and you'll be a sitting duck.

[spoon22]

That's a good point.

[Fnord]

The biggest problem is ofcourse that this sucks.. and that in a multiway pot with a few highstacks, they can play their vast range of strategies and you'll be a sitting duck.

Ummm... no, when 10%+ of my stack is going in pre-flop you can play all of the implied odds crap you want, because it's just more Sklanski bucks for me.

250bb deep LAgg opens for 5x, you cover and call with a pair, sc or broadwayish thing.

I push for 40bb. My range is 88+, AQ+,AJs+, KQs. SHIP IT.

Short-buys get a bad rap, because it's not a very macho way to play poker and most players on the short stack are really terrible.

Let a thinking player take cash off the table and he'll fuck up the game good and laugh all the way to the bank.

[dpe8598]

I play this 1-2 casino game a lot and the above poster is right, the typical raise is anywhere from 7 to 10 times the blind (10 to 20 dollars at 1-2). In fact, if you raise to 8, people look at you suspiciously, ha. Even if you are playing premium hands, if you only have 50BB, than you better get one of those hands early and get a favorably flop or you are going to be doing a lot of rebuying.

I'm not saying you can't do this, if you are comfortable w/ this and you think you'll make the most money this way fine. Personally, I think the best way to beat the casino 1-2 game is to come in w/ 100 times BB and play for stacks whenever you are strong (I'm talking about TPTK here). These games are notoriously loose, and although you will see a lot of variance, this is a sure way to beat these games.

[Fnord]

If they're opening for 10x and getting calls, you can pre-flop monkey the game for a profit. Hence, it's certainly not in everyone's best interest to buy in deep, as many players would be better off just fucking up the game.

[jackvance]

Ummm... no, when 10%+ of my stack is going in pre-flop you can play all of the implied odds crap you want, because it's just more Sklanski bucks for me.

250bb deep LAgg opens for 5x, you cover and call with a pair, sc or broadwayish thing.

I push for 40bb. My range is 88+, AQ+,AJs+, KQs. SHIP IT.

Short-buys get a bad rap, because it's not a very macho way to play poker and most players on the short stack are really terrible.

Let a thinking player take cash off the table and he'll fuck up the game good and laugh all the way to the bank.

That is all very macho of you.

[Rondavu]

A funny thing happens when you remove implied odds from the equation.

[RiverMonkey]

I play live $1/2 NL, $200 capped buy-in poker at least 2 or 3 times a week. I always buy in for the max, and I keep $100 extra in chips in my pocket as a re-load reserve. If I go below the max, I top up until my stacks gets north of the max buy in and then of course the plan is to never look back. If things go according to plans (which they usually do because the competition sucks so much) I usually end up deep stacked (200, 300BB and higher kinda range) in these games.

If you are good at picking your spots and getting away from hands when beat, and knowing when to push marginal situations, you should be more inclined to be comfortable playing with as many chips on the table as you can. With better competition to contend with, in a nutshell, you'll tend to be put to more difficult decisions, more frequently for stacks (or at least a large part of your deep stack). This is the heart of what Fnord is getting at. That is why he asked the hypothetical about buying in for more if a really good player came to the table who now has you covered.

Here's another hypothetical that will hopefully make you think about this topic a little more. If you were playing in a $1/2, $200 max buy-in capped game, and you had a stack=300BBs or more, and you were allowed to take any amount of money (from 0x your stack to (1x stack -$200) of your stack) off the table , would want to do this and if so, why. If not, why not? (Hint: you better be asking a bunch of clarifying questions and/or defining a set of assumptions or observations about the game before answering these questions. IOWs, without this background context, there is no right or wrong answer per se)

[spoon22]

This may be an obvious question, but if your sitting at a $200 capped max table, how can you go below and then buy "north" of the max? Maybe I'm just not making sense of this.

I agree with your philosophy on buying in max, RiverMonkey. One of the guy's going with us on the trip and I were talking about where to buy in, but after reading all the posts, I agree that your playing hesitant poker with buying in at 30BB. More times than not with that stack, you'll be waiting for the nuts, when your not even a threat anymore after being blinded to death. I'm buying in for the max, period. WOO HOO!

[Fnord]

I agree that your playing hesitant poker with buying in at 30BB. More times than not with that stack, you'll be waiting for the nuts, when your not even a threat anymore after being blinded to death.

Not me! If idiots are raising 10x pre-flop and morons are just calling, then going 40-50 deep and pushing a reasonable range kills the game. If your range is wider than QQ+/AK, the blinds aren't a problem. This will also make you really unpopular....

[RiverMonkey]

This may be an obvious question, but if your sitting at a $200 capped max table, how can you go below and then buy "north" of the max? Maybe I'm just not making sense of this.

Sorry, that was poorly worded on my part. I should have simply said that I keep re-loading from my 'reserve' if I ever go below the max.

[RiverMonkey]

Not me! If idiots are raising 10x pre-flop and morons are just calling, then going 40-50 deep and pushing a reasonable range kills the game. If your range is wider than QQ+/AK, the blinds aren't a problem. This will also make you really unpopular....

I've done this too, but rarely. I say rarely, because I usually just move to a more pre-flop passive table when I find myself at a table like this. The key to why this tactic works in the games you described obviously is that you are pushing your smaller stack with a range that's wider than QQ+/AK, while bascially representing a relatively narrower range. You are forcing your opponents to make important, non-trivial $$-wise decisions before the flop.

I 've found this approach useful as a means to basically "train" an out-of-control table and bring them back in line. It turns the game into one that's more focused on pre-flop holdings and instrinsic hand value compared to one that's more about playing poker and deeper stack decision making. I think that's why you call it "killing the game"; this tactic tends to take alot of the poker out of the poker game. In deep stacked games, where relatively more chips are going in on later streets, hand value normalize; post flop play becomes much more important.

I don't enjoy these so called pre-flop type games because the very nature of how to play well in this type of game runs counter to my preferred style of play which is to play selectively laggy and see lots of flops where I get to make lots of good post flop decisions and force my opponents to make lots of bad ones. Same sort of thing holds true in fast paced tournaments. You are forced to pick a hand with intrinsic pre-flop/showdown value and go with it. In slower tournaments (the ones I strongly prefer), where you have lots of chips relative to the blinds and the blind levels escalate more slowly, you can actually play some poker.

The kind of game you describe are definately out there in ridiculous abundance, but I try to avoid them because I feel that they tend to blunt my post flop skill edges which I know to be the ultimate source of most of my $$ success. As always, the key to success in big-bet poker is knowing how to profile a table, and its constituent players and then making the necessary adjustments to play in the most exploitive manner possible.