Canary3 1 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 is it ever a good idea to buy in for anything less than the maximum? Could it ever help in any situation? Link to post Share on other sites
Dratj 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 yes , yes. limits your losses and people are less scared to push you all in so you get paid on hands more often than not. Link to post Share on other sites
jack24bauer24 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 If you don't buy in for a full buy in, drop down in limits until you feel comfortable to do so. Link to post Share on other sites
GWCGWC 83 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 play shorthandedI hate people buying in with the min. It's very very rare that they win, and the ones that do double up, usually leave. Link to post Share on other sites
_Great_Dane_ 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 is it ever a good idea to buy in for anything less than the maximum? Could it ever help in any situation? http://www.roundersmovie.com/sounds/cant_win_much.wav Link to post Share on other sites
kkcountry 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I buy in short if I'm drunk/pissed off because I know I'll want to poooosh a lot. Link to post Share on other sites
astros11ss 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 yes, there are certain advantages to buying in shortstacked, read sklansky's "no limit hold em: theory and practice" for a better explanation than i could ever provide here. Link to post Share on other sites
Zach6668 513 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Buy in short if you suck at postflop, or you are scared money and playing out of your roll.Otherwise, be a man. Link to post Share on other sites
Canary3 1 Posted September 26, 2006 Author Share Posted September 26, 2006 Buy in short if you suck at postflop, or you are scared money and playing out of your roll.Otherwise, be a man.thanx for the replies... I might pick up that book (skanskly is so boring though) and i usually buy in short if im playing out of my roll Link to post Share on other sites
_Great_Dane_ 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Buy in short if you suck at postflop, or you are scared money and playing out of your roll.Otherwise, be a man. Link to post Share on other sites
pbcsurfer 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I like to buy in for a smaller amount then get a feel for the table I'm at. After that if you take a loss on a "infamous" bad beat, you dont have to worry. But if you feel they're weak, you take advantage of them with a deep stack and take all their friggin money!! Link to post Share on other sites
Zach6668 513 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I like to buy in for a smaller amount then get a feel for the table I'm at. After that if you take a loss on a "infamous" bad beat, you dont have to worry. But if you feel they're weak, you take advantage of them with a deep stack and take all their friggin money!! I'd much rather start with a full buyin and maximize my expectation. AINEC. Link to post Share on other sites
Flack_attack 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I don't know why, but Barry Greenstein in Ace on the River says he usually buys in for the minimum. Link to post Share on other sites
Dratj 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I'd much rather start with a full buyin and maximize my expectation. AINEC.I agree but if you want to gamble..... Link to post Share on other sites
pbcsurfer 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Your stragedy probably works good for you, but for me I might end up donkying off all my chips and looking real cool! But seriously it depends on the amount that you are playing for and what type of player you are. Link to post Share on other sites
Zach6668 513 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Your stragedy probably works good for you, but for me I might end up donkying off all my chips and looking real cool! But seriously it depends on the amount that you are playing for and what type of player you are.Yah.Like I said, if you can't (or aren't comfortable yet) playing postflop, buy in short. Link to post Share on other sites
pbcsurfer 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 By the way that goal is amazing, I'm a former travel hockey player myself Link to post Share on other sites
Dratj 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 By the way that goal is amazing, I'm a former travel hockey player myselfqft Link to post Share on other sites
pbcsurfer 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 qftyour point? Link to post Share on other sites
MychCumstien 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I agree with the consensus that it depends... it really depends on the player. I will say that the "best" players buy in for the max amount, especially in NL. The simple reason being, your stack is half your power. Without it, you can't be as aggressive in pushing people around. Sure you can be aggressive and go all-in, but you won't get the same respect that you would with a big stack, and you'll get called more often than not. If you want a call, then it's a good thing, but you lose the power to bluff, and to protect your weaker hands, i.e. flop top pair, trying to keep people from drawing to their straights and flushes.Someone did make a great point earlier though, if you are not a strong post flop player, then maybe buying in for the min maybe your style. It really depends on the individual's abilities.The top pros will buy in for the max, simply because they view the game as many rounds of sparring, waiting for the one knock out punch, where you can take your opponent for their entire stack. DN has a great thread on this site, discussing this very thing: the excellent players will win many small pots and wait for the right timing to go for the big one when they have a huge advantage over their opponent, vs. going for the homerun right off the bat. By doing so, you can provide yourself a huge advantage over your opponent. Pushing with a small stack preflop is almost never going to give you more than a 4-1 advantage, maybe a few exceptions where you'll be a bigger fav than that i.e. AA vs. AK, but if you can outplay your opponents post flop, you can do far better.Now if you're outclassed at your table, pushing all-in preflop maybe better, as you take away your opponents ability to out play you after the flop, but truthfully, if you are that outmatched at the table, you should leave and pick a better one. In my opinion, playing a small stack, and pushing early is a much weaker style of play, it has it's place, but I personally feel it's place is in tournaments, where you are sometimes forced to play a small stack, not in a cash game. I think people incorrectly confuse aspects of tournament play with cash games, and small stack play is one of those aspects. There are others as well, but I won't get into them in this thread.Back to my original point about the benefits of a large stack. Doyle Brunson makes the point in his book that you can potentially win far more by winning a lot of small pots, than by only focusing on the big ones. This is because you have the ability to steal with a large stack, something you can't do with a small stack. With a small stack you will always need a hand to win, because people simply won't believe you, and you can't scare them off.Ok, enough on my dissertation, the main point is that if you are a solid player, buy in for as much as you can, and you will have much more power at the table, and can potentially win far more. If you are a weaker player and still learning the finer points of post flop play, then play a small stack until you gain experience and confidence, then move up to a large stack. Good luck at the tables Side note: play within your bankroll, buy in for the full amount, but play at a limit you feel comfortable with, and your bankroll can afford. Link to post Share on other sites
SFkid 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 I don't know why, but Barry Greenstein in Ace on the River says he usually buys in for the minimum.Barry says that it is simply easier to play a shorter stack and it makes it easier to limit losses and it brings less attencion to you having a smaller stack Link to post Share on other sites
pbcsurfer 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Beautiful. Link to post Share on other sites
bhaas 0 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Might as well buy in for the max or why even bother getting out of fucking bed. I hate not having the max in front of me in case I get the killer hand so I can get the killer payoff. Or lose it all. If your gonna play, play. That's my philosophy on the subject. Link to post Share on other sites
cu in 4years Dan 1 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 http://www.roundersmovie.com/sounds/cant_win_much.wavman i love that movie. even before i knew about poker i loved to watch it.im gonna watch it now, or when my brother comes back from getting a cord for my speakers which he left at a mates after a lan. Link to post Share on other sites
mtdesmoines 3 Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 play shorthandedI hate people buying in with the min. It's very very rare that they win, and the ones that do double up, usually leave.There's nothing more infuriating than the short buy-in. It's usually relatively "nothing" to put them all in and the suckers always hit a hand. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now