good amount to buy in short stacked

[lil_o]

Buying in short-stacked to NL ring games seems to be pretty popular on these forums. What is a reasonable number of BB to buy-in for when playing short stacked?

Thanks.

[TStoneMBD]

the smaller you can buy in for the greater your advantage. buying in for 1BB is optimal. that is not to say that a 100xBB stack is an advantage to a 500xBB stack. but a 1xBB stack is an advantage to a table full of 500xBB stacks.

[MattHatter]

A friend of mine always buys in short. He is convinced that he gets more action that way and minimizes his max potential loss.

I have tried to tell him that if you are any good it is to your advantage to have the max buy in or at least have the big stack covered.

The way I figure it, using my stack size to fool others??? or to minimize my losses??? is not the approach to take.

If the opportunity should arise you want to be able to MAXIMIZE profit.. not minimize loss. I think minimizing loss is kind of pessimistic way to approach the game.

Also if I have $100 I don't have to be quite as careful about betting into a guy with $20 as I do when he has $100 as well.

Matt

[TStoneMBD]

lets assume the max buyin for a game of 5/5NL is 10k, and your entire bankroll is 10k. should you plop that down on the table to avoid being pessimistic? no. you avoid big swings. buying in short is an advantage because players with large stacks are playing against each other, with loose preflop standards and are therefore giving up equity to the player with the odd sized stack. with a $100 stack, you should be extra careful betting into a guy with a $20 stack because you may be trying to take down a $200 pot with a bluff against the rest of the large stacks, but the short stack in the hand is already committed to seeing a showdown. just because $20 doesnt mean much to you doesnt mean you should not be worried about betting into him, you are losing equity that way.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]
A friend of mine always buys in short.

[/ QUOTE ]


Like Turning Stone says, a lot has to do with your bankroll AND your level of play.

I have a friend that when he plays the NL game at Foxwoods ALWAYS makes sure he has the most money at the table, so that he knows (and everyone knows) that he can bust anyone IF it comes to it. It works for him as he has the money so that losing X thousand in a session is immaterial, especially when a losing session is far more infrequent than the winning ones for him.

Barron Vangor Toth
www.BarronVangorToth.com (http://www.BarronVangorToth.com)

[ginko]

I buy in for only 20 bb's because I've been pushed off AK way to many times to A6... it allows me to be more aggressive and win more money. Plus, sets don't have odds to call /images/graemlins/smile.gif !!!

If people think I'm a fish, then so be it /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Caruso329]

I disagree with the whole concept of buying in shortstacked to create a fish image, create fold equity for others, minimize loss, etc.

I have been on both ends of the spectrum and I cannot see myself buying in for any less than the max in the future. I use to buy-in shortstacked back in the day. I would buy in for $10 at my .10/.25 NL game, so that's what, 40 BB? Now, the reason I did this was not for any of the above reasons, but as a way to make myself play tighter (I played loose as a goose awhile back), and to also hope to get paid off on my big hands because my short stack was so little in comparison to the big stacks.

Now, let me explain why my theory was flawed. For one, self discipline is enough to make oneself play tighter. If you cannot discipline yourself to play only premium hands without having a shortstack then that is (and was in mine) a major leak in your game. No one has mentioned this, but I'm just saying for the record.
The second reason my theory is flawed is because when I would get a big hand, I would've still gotten it paid off if I had had a bigger stack. In actuality, I would've gotten paid off more. You are missing out on a lot of money when you turn a monster, someone has the second nuts, and you only have 25 BB, when you could've had 100 BB.

[ QUOTE ]
lets assume the max buyin for a game of 5/5NL is 10k, and your entire bankroll is 10k. should you plop that down on the table to avoid being pessimistic?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where you could find an uncapped NL game (I'm sure there are some), but buying in for your complete roll is complete nonsense. And buying in shortstacked (like you recommend) is not smart either.

My philosophy as told only applies for NL, but I've read posts by limit players saying they always like to have at least 12 BB so they can cap on every street if they turn a monster against a maniac.

My .02

[lil_o]

I agree with some of your points, but I think you are overlooking the fact that you need to adjust your style when playing shortstacked. Playing shortstacked isn't about drawing to the nuts (unless you get the right odds). Isn't it where you get your money in by the flop with the best hand (by best hand I mean either a set, an overpair, TPTK) and hope the villian pays you off?

feel free to correct me if I am mistaken!

[PokerFink]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree with some of your points, but I think you are overlooking the fact that you need to adjust your style when playing shortstacked. Playing shortstacked isn't about drawing to the nuts (unless you get the right odds). Isn't it where you get your money in by the flop with the best hand (by best hand I mean either a set, an overpair, TPTK) and hope the villian pays you off?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are basically correct. The idea behind buying into, say, a 1-2 300max NL game with $100 is to get all-in preflop or on the flop with the best hand. You're not trying to play patient, solid poker. You're trying to go the felt with TPTK on the flop or 10-10+ preflop because of the chance of being called by an inferior hand (ie TP worse kicker or a lower PP). You would not go to the felt in these situations with a larger stack, because you won't be called by an inferior hand. The short stack allows you to push these edges for your whole stack.

An ideal situation is to play in a loose, deepstacked game with a shortstack, allowing you to get all-in in ideal spots against players that will call your short stack aggressively. Works very well against drunk players.

[Zim]

Actually, my win rate increased being short stacked because the drunk ploppies loved to make a guy go all-in.

It was, afterall, only 10-20 BBs. They would think twice if I had 50 BBs or more.

No, it wasn't "good" poker (whatever that is), however it was profitable.

While it lasted.

Best,
Zim

[Tboner7]

I don't like being shortstacked. I've had a few situations where when I was shortstacked I could have made MUCH more if I had a larger stack, but didn't.

[Caruso329]

Yes, I do agree that their is a completely different style to playing shortstacked, and I also think that every good poker player should learn how to play a shortstack. But, I only see this as an advantage in a tournament where you are forced to be shortstacked if you lose chips.

I stand by my opinion that you are losing valuable profits by coming into a game shortstacked. Though, I do respect your opinions about pushing TPTK against drunken idiots, or other similar situations. These are valuable plays for a shortstack, but like I said, I only see them as being needed in a tournament environment.

[TStoneMBD]

buying in shortstacked will increase your rate of return on your investment than if you were to buyin deepstacked. that is not to say that your hourly rate will improve. for instance, a winning player who will average 5xbb/hr at a 5/10NL game will make $50 an hour if he has a good size stack of 2k. a 2k stack with a win rate of 50/hr is a ROR of 2.5%. however, if he bought in for a shortstack of $50, he would have to double his stack every hour just to match his win rate, for a nearly unattainable 100% ROR. if however, he were to make $10/hr with a $50 buyin, his rate of return would be 20%.

the point that i am trying to make is that it is not more profitable to buy in for a short stack in a no limit game, but in terms of risk vs reward it is. a player with an 8k bankroll should not buy in for a 2k stack, but a $50 stack is more than reasonable. his long term ev will decrease but will hedge against variance.

note: of course buying in for $50 at a 5/10 game is not permitted in any casino that i know of, i am merely stressing a point.

[Caruso329]

I see where you are coming from. I was merely talking from a long term profit standpoint.

On a sidenote:

[ QUOTE ]
note: of course buying in for $50 at a 5/10 game is not permitted in any casino that i know of, i am merely stressing a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Cheers to online poker!

[Lawrence Ng]

If you must, I recommend 50xBB for short stack.

Lawrence