Minimum Buy-In Question

[LuvDemNutz]

I play in a 2-5 NL game at a local underground club. The buy-in is capped at $300 but there is no minimum buy-in.

My question is do you guys think there should be a minimum buy-in in such a game and if so how much?

I ask, because I played last night and wound up losing 2/3 of my stack to a guy who bought in for $15. There were others on the table that bought in for $40.

I should've known it was going to be that type of night by the way the first hand played out:

I'm in the BB and get AKs - 5 limpers, I make it $40 to go. Everyone folds to Mr. $15 who decided to go "all-in" for his remaining $10 and turns over KTo. Of course he catches a ten, I get nothing and he takes it down. Now, most people would say no big deal - I just lost $15 - but if the has any kind of money behind him he more than likely lays that garbage down. Normally, I would be able to make plays like that and take down the dead money in the pot. But when up against micro-stacks there isn't really any "poker-playing" - just all-ins and whoever gets luckiest wins.

Anyway the guy proceeded to double through me two more times (with similar inferior holdings) as his stack grew to $300 and mine dropped to $100. All told I dropped over $400 on a table where given the best set of circumstances (I clean everyone out) I win $600-$700.

So do you think I have a legitimate gripe or am I just whining like a little bitch?

[tbach24]

You want to have bad players covered. And you were a 75-25 favorite to that guy on the AK vs. KT hand. It's just bad luck.

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
You want to have bad players covered. And you were a 75-25 favorite to that guy on the AK vs. KT hand. It's just bad luck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks tbach, I know I was a huge favorite that hand, I know it was bad luck, etc, etc.

That one hand aside though, my question is more about the set-up of the game.

Basically, what I'm getting at is that I probably should've sat down looked at the stacks that were on the table and got up and left. The risk/reward just wasn't there. Best case, I clean out mostly everone on the table and win a couple hundred.

Worst case, these idiots get really lucky early on and everyone on the table is playing for/with my money.

[kongo_totte]

If you had alternative tables, and felt you were better than the average player there, I would not sit down. One of my major criteries when I choose tables online are stack-sizes. I'm not sitting down with $100 at a table full of $15 satcks, basically because they don't have any money I can win.

[The Bloke]

On the other hand, does the small stack sizes not tell you that these might be fish, and it'll be really easy to get their money?

One thing that shouts 'fish' to me is a player who buys in for the minimum - e.g. they buy in for £20 at a £100max table.

Sure they have less money to win, but they're also much more likely to give it away. Winning £15 each from 6 bad players could be easier than winning £100 from one good player.

Also someone who buys-in for a middling, random amount - like £45.20. To me that shouts "this is all the money I have in my account". Not a fool-proof read, but it does tell me this person isn't a pro, and probably not a regular player.

Anyone agree?

[Bacchus]

[ QUOTE ]
On the other hand, does the small stack sizes not tell you that these might be fish, and it'll be really easy to get their money?

One thing that shouts 'fish' to me is a player who buys in for the minimum - e.g. they buy in for £20 at a £100max table.

Sure they have less money to win, but they're also much more likely to give it away. Winning £15 each from 6 bad players could be easier than winning £100 from one good player.

Also someone who buys-in for a middling, random amount - like £45.20. To me that shouts "this is all the money I have in my account". Not a fool-proof read, but it does tell me this person isn't a pro, and probably not a regular player.

Anyone agree?

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree 100%. I always look for people who buy in for "odd" amounts because I figure that they're on the way out. They also tend to play loosely.

[The Bloke]

Oh also - as the OP found - these min-buyin fish often get lucky..

So that £20 he bought in for could well go up to £100 at the expense of other fish and some better players, meaning he's now a rich fish, waiting to give me his money..

Generally I find that a table full of min-buyins doesn't stay that way long - some will get lucky, and the rest don't and go out quickly. Either way, the table tends to revert to big stacks soon - but whilst it's like that, there's lots of action and I can clean up.

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]

Generally I find that a table full of min-buyins doesn't stay that way long - some will get lucky, and the rest don't and go out quickly. Either way, the table tends to revert to big stacks soon - but whilst it's like that, there's lots of action and I can clean up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, this is pretty much what happened, but the big stacks were supplied with my money. So I was just playing to get my money back at this point.

Here is what I am saying:

1) If it goes good for me, I win maybe $100-$200
2) If it goes absolutley amazing for me, I win $300-$400 tops (I clear out the table and the rake figures to eat up the rest)
3) If it goes bad for me, I lose $200-$300 easy
4) If it goes really, really bad for me I lose $400 - ??? as I keep rebuying, and rebuying.

Why play if the upside is very limited and the downside is unlimited?

[LuvDemNutz]

One more thing...

I think short-stacked poker severely limits the advantages I have over the other players as far as being a better player. I can't "charge" them for their mistakes because their credit line is so low (if you get my analogy).

It's hard if not impossible to make moves on a shortstack (ex semi-bluffing a draw on the flop, etc) as the shortstack doesn't have to worry about possibly facing a second big bet on the turn because even calling the raise will pot-commit him.

Also, you never have odds to play PP trying to spike a set because a even a measly 3BB raise by a shortstack is giving you incorrect odds to call trying to spike.

So basically what do you do? Sit there, wait to get a high PP, put the shortstack all-in and hope to not get drawn out?

That sounds a lot more like gambling to me and a lot less like poker.

[tbach24]

On another note, 40 would only be 8xBB, which is very insufficient of a buy-in.

[Ghazban]

It sounds like you are not correctly adjusting to the shortstacked play. If you keep pissing away buyin after buyin on a regular basis, the problem is more with you than with the no-minimum buyin rule. In the short term, sure you could lose some money but that could happen with bad beats at any stack depth. At least when they're short, they aren't bad beating you out of a large sum of money.

[ QUOTE ]
That sounds a lot more like gambling to me and a lot less like poker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Newsflash-- poker IS gambling.

[parttimepro]

He bought in for 3 BB? So he was very close to pot-committed after he first posted? That's pretty bad. 20 BB should be the absolute minimum.

I wouldn't be concerned that he sucked out on you. I'd just be irritated that his seat is taken by a little two-bit mickey-mouse player that can't be bothered to bring a proper bankroll. Others are right that he'll probably be a worse player, but having short stacks does significantly limit the skill advantage of better players. The game turns into all-in preflop coin flips, like the second half of a PP SNG. Plus, it'll lower your win rate because you're effectively playing lower stakes. It's not that he'll build a roll with your money and beat you--if he's as bad as you say, this won't happen very often. It's that when you do beat him, you only take $15 from him.

I've never been to an underground card room, but it seems like he should be ridiculed mercilessly for being such a little bitch that he can only bring $15 to the table.

[gge513]

How do you know he doesnt have $200 or so and is looking to buy-in multiple times. This happens on PS alot as someone will buy-in for $10 at the .25/.50 lose it and by right back in. Therefore when they make the nuts they won't win that much. How often does somebody buy-in for $15 and not have any more money? They are probably just weak players who are looking to minimize their losses. Ill play 9 terrible players who buy-in multiple times for $10 before Ill play 2 good players who buy in for the max along with 7 fish

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
Others are right that he'll probably be a worse player, but having short stacks does significantly limit the skill advantage of better players. The game turns into all-in preflop coin flips, like the second half of a PP SNG. Plus, it'll lower your win rate because you're effectively playing lower stakes. It's not that he'll build a roll with your money and beat you--if he's as bad as you say, this won't happen very often. It's that when you do beat him, you only take $15 from him.


[/ QUOTE ]

Finally somebody gets what I'm trying to say.

I'm effectively playing lower stakes, but still paying $7 in blinds every orbit in the hopes that I can catch a big hand and bust out the massive $15 stack! Well there were three other players there with stacks of $40, $40 and $60 so maybe if I was really lucky I could bust out all four of them!


[ QUOTE ]

I've never been to an underground card room, but it seems like he should be ridiculed mercilessly for being such a little bitch that he can only bring $15 to the table.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL - will do next time. Or I might just stick to playing online for the time being.

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you know he doesnt have $200 or so and is looking to buy-in multiple times. This happens on PS alot as someone will buy-in for $10 at the .25/.50 lose it and by right back in. Therefore when they make the nuts they won't win that much. How often does somebody buy-in for $15 and not have any more money? They are probably just weak players who are looking to minimize their losses. Ill play 9 terrible players who buy-in multiple times for $10 before Ill play 2 good players who buy in for the max along with 7 fish

[/ QUOTE ]

The fish in question claimed he would go the ATM after losing the first $15. But there were similar miniscule stack sizes of $40, $40 and $60 on the table.

[LuvDemNutz]

[ QUOTE ]

Newsflash-- poker IS gambling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, Captain Obvious, I know poker is gambling. But there is much less GAMBLE to it then say betting on sports or the roulette wheel.

Maybe someday you'll understand why.