buy in size

[jomatty]

i was reading ace on the river recently and the section about buy in sizes made me start to think of something i hadnt thought much about in quite awhile.
he goes over the pros and cons of both a large and small buy in and says he usualloy opts for a small buy in, especially in no limit.
ive read similar thoughts from Tommy angelo (however when i asked he said he was only talking about live nl although he didnt elaborate on his reasons for why)
i was just curious as to what others do in both limit and no limit.
in limit i dont really think it matters much. online i usually just buy in for the default amount which ranges from 10-50 big bets.
in no limit i always buy in for the max online, thinking that the extra money and ability to play larger pots and potential to win more outweighs the simplicity of playing a small stack and any mathmatical edge that not having enough money to call all bets provides.
live my decisions on buy ins are mostly player dependant and i see a lot of merit in tommys idea of buying in for the minimum and adding on accordingly as you get a chance to handicap the field.
any thought are appreciated.
matty

[R_Ellender]

When you have a big edge over your opponents in NL, you should try to have a larger initial buyin. However, even playing a short stack with an edge will be +EV in the long run.

On the other hand, when your opponents outclass you, you would prefer a short stack, because you will have fewer tough decisions. I can't think of any circumstances where a large stack would be +EV against tougher opponents.