buying short, good or bad?

[SCfuji]

when there is a huge spread between the buy-ins to a NL table, is it always better to buy-in for the max? i am a limit player and understand the concept of buying in for enough bets to play a few hands to the max and always do, but is there value to short buying into a NL game?

i.e. players underestimating the value of your hand, etc.

thanks,
fuji

[Potowame]

so you flop a FH with 99 on a AA9 board and you go all-in for your $10 buy-in on a $50 max table. Guy with $50+ calls you with AK.

to bad he didnt respect your hand he lost $10. good thing you didnt buy-in for $50. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

the only value to it is if you are the worse player at the table, you will only lose what you buy-in for.

[edtost]

buying "short" (100-200 bb's or so) when a no max buy game is playing rediculously deep is a good way to force otherwise strong players to make huge mistakes against you because they are trying to bust the deep fish.

[Jonny]

personally I always buy in the max, because I am better than the majority of players

[damn_river]

i am a winning player at the $25 NL ring games. i buy in short because i hate loosing a full buy-in. Logically, it doesn't make sense, but emotionally, it feels better after a tough day or string of tough days.

dR

[TheWorstPlayer]

Sincerely out of curiousity: do you switch tables when you get over the max buy-in? If not, then how deep will you allow yourself to get? At those limits, I personally find a deep stack to be such an advantage. People play back at you with completely ridiculous crap since they think they are being pushed around. I find it much easier to move from 100 to 150 than from 25 to 75, honestly.

[PITTM]

***** Hand History for Game 616523400 *****
0/0 TEXASHTGAMETABLE (NL) - SAT MAY 22 04:23:57 EDT 2004
Table Table 14191 (6 max) (Real Money) -- Seat 5 is the button
Total number of players : 6
Seat 1: Sideshowsc ( $11.02)
Seat 2: danielkml ( $25.75)
Seat 3: Ocean_Master ( $39.74)
Seat 4: Kona25 ( $27.22)
Seat 5: Ryancjordan ( $11.75)
Seat 6: ryan5525 ( $36.01)
ryan5525 posts small blind (0.25)
Sideshowsc posts big blind (0.50)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Ryancjordan [ Ac, Jc ]
danielkml folds.
Ocean_Master folds.
Kona25 calls (0.50)
Ryancjordan raises (2) to 2
ryan5525 calls (1.75)
Sideshowsc folds.
Kona25 calls (1.50)
** Dealing Flop ** : [ Qc, 9d, 8c ]
ryan5525 checks.
Kona25 bets (2)
Ryancjordan calls (2)
ryan5525 raises (4) to 4
Kona25 calls (2)
Ryancjordan calls (2)
** Dealing Turn ** : [ Kc ]
ryan5525 checks.
Kona25 bets (6)
Ryancjordan calls (5.75)
Ryancjordan is all-In.
ryan5525 calls (6)
Creating Main Pot with $34 with Ryancjordan
** Dealing River ** : [ Tc ]
ryan5525 checks.
Kona25 checks.
** Summary **
Main Pot: $34 | Side Pot 1: $0.45 | Rake: $1.80
Board: [ Qc 9d 8c Kc Tc ]
Sideshowsc balance $10.52, lost $0.50 (folded)
danielkml balance $25.75, didn't bet (folded)
Ocean_Master balance $39.74, didn't bet (folded)
Kona25 balance $15.67, bet $12, collected $0.45, lost -$11.55 [ 3c 5c ] [ a flush, king high -- Kc,Qc,Tc,8c,5c ]
Ryancjordan balance $34, bet $11.75, collected $34, net +$22.25 [ Ac Jc ] [ Royal Flush -- Ac,Kc,Qc,Jc,Tc ]
ryan5525 balance $24.01, lost $12 [ Ad Qd ] [ a pair of queens -- Ad,Kc,Qd,Qc,Tc ]

blah...

rj

[TheWorstPlayer]

That sucks, but nice hand. Not only do I always buy in for the max, but if I get below ~75% of the buy-in I rebuy. I view every dollar I put at the table as having +EV (despite being TheWorstPlayer), so why not stay as full as possible?

[Yarney]

The idea is to always have more chips than the worst player at the table. That way when you finally get a monster hand you can take them all at once. At a B&M 1/2 NL game its a lot easier to go from $350 to $850 than it is to go from $60 (min buy-in) to $300 (max buy-in).

-Yarney

[AncientPC]

I buy-in for the max. I feel that I should be able to do fine deep stacked (for the 100BB / 200BB buy-in sites), and if I can't then I need to move down a level.

Shortstacked can also work to your advantage too. If you play aggressive, short stackers will get their stack commited by the turn and you can just push. I get a lot of people who make bad calls just because they're "pot committed".

My loss limit is 2 buy-in per table. One buy-in can be due to a coinflip or suckout, but once it hits two buy-ins I've lost table image, and possibly tilting even if I've been playing my normal poker game.

[SCfuji]

do you never regret not having enough money on the table to win the max when you get your doubling-up hand?

[SCfuji]

i think this is the explanation i was looking for. thank you.

[TheWorstPlayer]

No worries, mate!

[excession]

I buy in for the max and rebuy up to max if I ever drop below 80% of it. This is because I want to maximise my returns when I get all-in...one of my least favourite sights in poker is when my stack has just taken a battering but before I can reload my next hand is AA /images/graemlins/frown.gif

However, during my experiment when I went all-in with every AA, AK, KK and QQ pre-flop I bought in at 40% of the max stack on the PS $50 tables and managed to get called 40% of the time - this shows that people are very trigger happy in calling the short stacks. You could use this to your advantage I guess (as your monster is much more likely to get called).

The maths might even slightly favour the short stack approach, but only if you are going to play tight ABC stuff. You can't really mix it up or bluff anyone with a short stack very effectively - and your table image will be pretty weak

[Evan]

I'm surprised there isn't more support for buying short in your case. I'm a limit player too so I really understand what you're saying. I'm going to play in an NL game tonight with edtost, scrub and maybe some other 2+2ers that, well, don't suck. I'm planning on buying short because it will make it a lot easier for me to play closer to optimally since I won't have to make the tough decisions that come with a deep stack.

I don't know if its just an ego thing about wanting to be the best deep stack player or what, but there are definitely advantages of buying short (even beyond those that I described as imnportant to me personally).

[Gbob]

Arrgh! Why would anyone *want* to be short stacked? Two strikes against it. First, what happens if you have the nuts? You can't get maximum return for your premium hand if you don't have any chips to throw into the pot. If someone pushes you want that money. How are you going to get it if you play short? Add to that the fact that you can't bully someone if you're short. A big stack can buy you hands and allows you take some chances.

[edtost]

Evan, i think one reason he isnt getting support for his decision is that the "short" we're talking about is still deeper than most sites' max buyin. buying in short at a 50x or 100x bb max online game is just retarded.

[Ghazban]

[ QUOTE ]
when there is a huge spread between the buy-ins to a NL table, is it always better to buy-in for the max? i am a limit player and understand the concept of buying in for enough bets to play a few hands to the max and always do, but is there value to short buying into a NL game?

i.e. players underestimating the value of your hand, etc.

thanks,
fuji

[/ QUOTE ]

In uncapped buyin games where you don't know the other players (this only applies live as I don't know of any uncapped games online), it can be to your advantage to buy in short until you get a read on the table, then put more money up. People with ridiculously deep stacks often make huge mistakes against a short stack because they don't realize that their implied odds are not there against the short stack.

[DJMaytag]

[ QUOTE ]
Arrgh! Why would anyone *want* to be short stacked? Two strikes against it. First, what happens if you have the nuts? You can't get maximum return for your premium hand if you don't have any chips to throw into the pot. If someone pushes you want that money. How are you going to get it if you play short? Add to that the fact that you can't bully someone if you're short. A big stack can buy you hands and allows you take some chances.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess i look at over the long haul of a session. the time will come when i double up with the nuts where i could have popped someone for more, but i'm confident enough that it will happen more than once in a long session to justify not buying in for the max. A session is much more than just one big hand, IMHO. Guess i just think more in tourney style terms...

[Tilt]

[ QUOTE ]

My loss limit is 2 buy-in per table. One buy-in can be due to a coinflip or suckout, but once it hits two buy-ins I've lost table image, and possibly tilting even if I've been playing my normal poker game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Interesting concept. But doesnt your table image fall in a helpful way? When I have been in the same situation and not feeling tilted, I stick around thinking that my losses are, although unpleasant, a form of advertising. I think to myself "I cant leave now, they think I suck!" I have found that I usually rebound quite well cause my play gets disrespected. This is assuming you are not being outmatched (and have the sense to know that you are).

[Gbob]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess i look at over the long haul of a session. the time will come when i double up with the nuts where i could have popped someone for more, but i'm confident enough that it will happen more than once in a long session to justify not buying in for the max. A session is much more than just one big hand, IMHO. Guess i just think more in tourney style terms...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, let's say that the situation I describe (getting the nuts early) doesn't happen enough to make it worthwhile. I don't agree, since poker requires taking advantage of every opportunity that comes down the pike, but let's grant that. The other point, that a large stack allows you to push other players around, still applies. Now, I never gave much thought to the flip side of people being more willing to call when you're short, but I still don't think that advantage outwighs the advantage of having resources in front of you.

It seems to me that the thing people who support having a short stack are saying is that they are afraid that if they have the money they'll make a poor decision and lose it. Fair enough, but that's simply an issue of having the self control not to go nuts. You can't play good poker if you're afraid of losing.

[DJMaytag]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, let's say that the situation I describe (getting the nuts early) doesn't happen enough to make it worthwhile. I don't agree, since poker requires taking advantage of every opportunity that comes down the pike, but let's grant that. The other point, that a large stack allows you to push other players around, still applies. Now, I never gave much thought to the flip side of people being more willing to call when you're short, but I still don't think that advantage outwighs the advantage of having resources in front of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so there are the times when the big hand, big pot may not come once or more in a session, but if you win enough to get to that max buyin point with small pots along the way till it happens, what does it matter where u started at?

Besides, more often than not, I'm wishing that *HE* was the one that had bought in for the max when I pop him with my big hand.

[AncientPC]

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough, but that's simply an issue of having the self control not to go nuts. You can't play good poker if you're afraid of losing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree, poker is about making tough decisions. I've taken the saying "scared money is dead money" to heart.

[TheWorstPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]

OK, so there are the times when the big hand, big pot may not come once or more in a session, but if you win enough to get to that max buyin point with small pots along the way till it happens, what does it matter where u started at?


[/ QUOTE ]

Situation 1: NL 200, sit with 100, get up to 200, pop fish with 300. Total earnings = 100 + 200 = 300.

Situation 2: NL 200, sit with 200, get up to 300, pop fish with 300. Total earnings = 100 + 300 = 400.

[Gbob]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, so there are the times when the big hand, big pot may not come once or more in a session, but if you win enough to get to that max buyin point with small pots along the way till it happens, what does it matter where u started at?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it does. Look at this way. Let's say a decent evening is one where you double up over a four hour session. If you bought in at 40 dollars, you now have 80 dollars and a 40 dollar profit for four hours of play. That's 10 dollars and hour. If you bought in for 120 you now have 240 dollars in your pocket and a rate of return of 30 dollars and hour profit.

You have to have money to make money in poker. What's the downside, really? You might lose it? Yeah, but you might lose your inital 40 dollars as well and have to buy in again if you're short stacked.

[PotatoStew]

So would folks agree that if a player would be upset at losing more than X dollars at a NL table, and he's not sure whether he'd be one of the better players at the table, but he'd still like to give it a try, then it's ok to buy in for X dollars, even if it's a short buy in, in the interest of being able to play more confidently and not worry about losing the buy in?

[Gbob]

[ QUOTE ]
So would folks agree that if a player would be upset at losing more than X dollars at a NL table, and he's not sure whether he'd be one of the better players at the table, but he'd still like to give it a try, then it's ok to buy in for X dollars, even if it's a short buy in, in the interest of being able to play more confidently and not worry about losing the buy in?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone should ever gamble more than they're comfortable losing. Poker might be a game of skill, but there is luck involved. Bad streaks happen. If a bad night means you have to worry about feeding your wife and kids, then don't play at that level.

I suppose that playing at a higher level with a short stack could improve your game, just by watching how bigger bankrolls play, but playing short is very, very different than playing with a real stack. Your whole strategy has to change.

Better to save money to play at a higher level more comfortably.