NL Ring Games - always by in the maximum amount?

[pokerroomace]

Is it best to buyin the maximum that you can buy in?

I read in the High-stakes forums that people were buying in for less.

I barely ever buyin the full amount. When I started the min. tables were 25NL. I wasn't willing to loose $25 so I bought in $10 each time instead. Then when I reached $20 I left and joined a new room.

These days I buyin $15 at the $25NL and the full amount at tables less than this. Should I always be buying in the full amount? What's the reasoning for this?

Thanks in advance

[Renton]

A good player will always make more in a deepstacked game, because it gives you more room to bluff and outplay.

[LimpinAintEZ]

If you are scared to lose a full buy in, you need to step down in limits - You want to have full buy ins so you can maximize your wins...I can't tell you how many times i've seen players with $4 at the table hit an absolute monster and make $4 - Nobody at the table will fear you - Sometimes you need them to think a bit - I have pushed short stacks in with nothing but a gutshot and overcard - they get all pissed off and i tell them "it cost me $4 to bust you" -

if you don't have 20 buy ins for the limit you are playing, you need to move down - the best feeling in the world is to be sitting at a table with 4 or 5 buy ins and dominating a table - you can't do that when you just get up and leave all the time....Speaking from experience here (i used to do shortstacked all the time - i was a weak player) - buy in full, or move down limits -0

[jackvance]

Buying in short is fine if you're not too confident in your ability at that stake - like you have just moved up or something. After a while, as you get better (or simply more comfortable), you will WANT TO buy in for more.. simply because you start to knock yourself over the head that you could have won more money in that pot if only you would have had more behind! Atleast that's how it went for me.

Another thing, and many will disagree here no doubt, but you can buy in short to "simulate" a proper BR for a stake. Like if you buy in with $15 at 25NL then a BR of $300 gives you 20 buy-ins.

The reason why the high stakes guys are buying in short isn't really something that concerns you and me.. it has to do with how the game is played at those high stakes. At lower limits they'd buy in full for sure.

[Greedo017]

buying in short reduces the amount of actual playing there is in the game and makes it more of a push/fold thing. It isn't necessarily easy to prove that buying in deeper lets you make money faster. But, in general its my opinion that it does.

[Miffed22001]

this question depends on one thing alone: Skill.

If you pwn the players at the table you buy in for more, if you dont you buy in short and play a game that exploits their weaknesses.

A few medium stakes players have bought in short stacked at 400 600 and 1knl recently and done it.

[biondino]

You are missing out on the type of leverage having a big stack gives you. People start respecting your raises FAR more; they're aware that in any given hand against you, they could find themselves playing for their whole stack. Plus the very simple psychology of your stack is big = you must be a good player!

[Thee One]

buying in short reduces the amount of actual playing there is in the game and makes it more of a push/fold thing.

Exactly...this is good if your post-flop game sucks. But contrarily, it doesn't give you much room to develop one. When I started I played this way and it worked well, as I got more experience I proceeded to buyin full almost all the time.

[jyms]

There is only one thing worse than losing a buy in and that's winning a hand with a monster when the other guy had a $25 stack but you bought in at the minimum and only had $4. Small stacks are bread and butter at $25NL. They have to play push or fold when I hit my hand, and most time they are small stacks out of fear or no BR management. Again, this is at $25NL, pushing around two or three small stacks is gravy.

[pokerroomace]

There is only one thing worse than losing a buy in and that's winning a hand with a monster when the other guy had a $25 stack but you bought in at the minimum and only had $4. Small stacks are bread and butter at $25NL. They have to play push or fold when I hit my hand, and most time they are small stacks out of fear or no BR management. Again, this is at $25NL, pushing around two or three small stacks is gravy.

I don't know what you mean by being pushed around. When I buy in $15 into a 25NL table nobody can push me around. And I don't really care if they do try and push me around. It's not like the end of a tourney where you have to try and steal blinds and make bluffs. I don't play with fear with a $15 stack.

Also, what happens when you loose with a monster to another monster and you only have a small stack - not a big one? You think wow, I just saved myself $10. It works both ways. So I don't really like this argument.

[jyms]

I never play my game to lose. So I would never take measures to minimize my losses if it is going to minimize my winnings. All things equal, I will win more than I lose, so losing big means winning big more often. If a $15 dollar stack is good, then why not a $10, or $4 stack? Why $15, Is there a reason?

[Cocco_Bill]

Its perfectly ok to buy in for the minimum if you know how to play effective short stack poker.

[Warpe]

Also, what happens when you loose with a monster to another monster and you only have a small stack - not a big one? You think wow, I just saved myself $10. It works both ways. So I don't really like this argument.

If you're a winning player, you should win more times than you lose, therefore...

[jyms]

^^^ ahem!!^^^Echo??

[DaNutsInYoEye]

You are missing out on the type of leverage having a big stack gives you. People start respecting your raises FAR more; they're aware that in any given hand against you, they could find themselves playing for their whole stack. Plus the very simple psychology of your stack is big = you must be a good player!

Ironically, that is why playing short stacked can be so effective.

[Warpe]

^^^ ahem!!^^^Echo??

Losers buy in short?

[dwags222]

playing short stack can be a huge advantage, but unless you understand the whats and why's of that advantage it is better to buy in w/ a full stack and learn how to play poker.

[Aceofone]

playing short stack can be a huge advantage, but unless you understand the whats and why's of that advantage it is better to buy in w/ a full stack and learn how to play poker.

Care to elaborate a little?

[dwags222]

when you are a short stack is is often easier to cause people to make mistakes. i am not going to elaborate too much on this because understanding the advantage of shortstacking is pretty worthless at 25nl...so i guess my above post is pretty pointless to be honest.

[yorib]

Short stack play not withstanding, buy in full to maximize winnings & buy in short to minimize losses.

[pokerroomace]

Also, what happens when you loose with a monster to another monster and you only have a small stack - not a big one? You think wow, I just saved myself $10. It works both ways. So I don't really like this argument.

If you're a winning player, you should win more times than you lose, therefore...

Ye... fine. That's the reason. The reason is not that you win more when you hit a monster. The reason is that overall if you're a better player - having more chips is better.

[theDEEPdish]

buying in short seems to be an easily effective strategy, I think that it is against the spirit of the game but if the site allows it you have to deal with it

[jackvance]

Another thing to consider:

Playing with 25BB, 60BB, 100BB, 200BB,.. is a big difference. If you don't understand that, go read the "implied odds" thingie in Renton's preflop strategy post. If you do understand it, you'll do great at MTTs too.

Now, if fish always bought in short, it would matter less.. but plenty of fish buy in full. You want to have a full stack to take their full stack. And another thing.. the shortstackers sometimes get lucky. Occasionally they end up with a full stack.. and they have zero clue how to play bigstack poker. They will fork over their cash because they're playing shortstack-poker with a big stack. You want to have your stack as big as possible to deal with them.

A third consideration: gambling with shortstacks. This is a fun pass-time if you're a bigstack. Basically, the idea is this: let's say your stack is $30 and shortie is $2.. you gamble with him 3x in a coinflip situation.. if he wins, he takes chunks out of you.. if you win once, you take all.

[vqc]

if you are the best player at the table you should buy in just enough that it covers the other biggest stack.

[Aceofone]

A third consideration: gambling with shortstacks. This is a fun pass-time if you're a bigstack. Basically, the idea is this: let's say your stack is $30 and shortie is $2.. you gamble with him 3x in a coinflip situation.. if he wins, he takes chunks out of you.. if you win once, you take all.

I really like this idea! I understand in theory that this works, but do you actually make a profit?

I've found at the lower limits that most shortstackers will bolt after a double-up, sometimes sitting back down again with their min-buy.

[vqc]

A third consideration: gambling with shortstacks. This is a fun pass-time if you're a bigstack. Basically, the idea is this: let's say your stack is $30 and shortie is $2.. you gamble with him 3x in a coinflip situation.. if he wins, he takes chunks out of you.. if you win once, you take all.

I really like this idea! I understand in theory that this works, but do you actually make a profit?

I've found at the lower limits that most shortstackers will bolt after a double-up, sometimes sitting back down again with their min-buy.

i dont like what jackvance says here.

if vilian has 2 dollars at NL25 and you have 30, you effective stack is 2 dollars. Thats it. Regardless of you winning once and taking it all, or him taking out a "small piece" of yourstack, if your taking chances that you wouldnt be taking if it "werent such a small part of your stack" then you might very wel be maybe making -EV plays. -EV will always be -EV, if he has 8BB then you only have 8BB, you dont have ur 100+ BB stack anymore. If its negative Ev for you to be gambooling with him, then itll be -EV regardless if u had 1million dolalrs in front of you, or the exact same size stack.

[Renton]

vqc,

coinflips with shortstacks are always profitable in cash games because of blind money overlay and fold equity, and the gamble 3 times and winner take all theory as told by jackvance does apply somewhat.

[vqc]

vqc,

coinflips with shortstacks are always profitable in cash games because of blind money overlay and fold equity, and the gamble 3 times and winner take all theory as told by jackvance does apply somewhat.

i can understand how taking a 50 50 coinflip will be +EV given an overlay.
and i agree that as long as were taking a +EV we can do it as many times as we like.

but i guess i mightve put words into jackvances mouth when he says "gambool" which i interpreted as a "well since were deep we can make -EV plays and sooner or later we will have it all from him becuase we are deeper than he is".

if it was the former rather than the later, i gladly put my foot in my mouth.

[jackvance]

It's more in the spirit of "you can make 0 EV plays".. basically you always want to get coinflips (typical high unpaired cards vs pp).. but sometimes they have you dominated.. and on occassion you have them dominated when they play air.

i guess i mightve put words into jackvances mouth when he says "gambool" which i interpreted as a "well since were deep we can make -EV plays and sooner or later we will have it all from him becuase we are deeper than he is".

My words were:

you gamble with him 3x in a coinflip situation

I saw other bigstacks do this, and kinda emulated it I think. Ofcourse in practice it never goes like that shortie goes $2=>$4=>$8.. some of them you'll bust immediately, others will hit and run, or pass your money into others, so you can take it back in a roundabout way, etc. It's kind of hard to explain, and you don't have to believe me.. it's just something I've observed, that if you "gamble" with them - and by gambling I mean you go in for a perceived coinflip against their range instead of only going in if you're well ahead of their range - they'll become more inclined to give it back. I dunno if it's a psychological thing or whatever, but it just seems that way.

(also it's good for your table image if people see you play subpremium hands.. ofcourse you don't "gamble" vs bigstacks, but some might be fooled into thinking you do)

(oh and the tilt factor when you bust someone with an inferior hand.. don't underestimate that.. watch them reload and try to take it back with a passion - making mistakes along the way.. all part of the "package" of gambling with the shorties)