Big buy-ins

[Jeff V]

Does anyone notice any benefits if they buy in real big for a particular limit? Do you think it helps you're attitude,play, or how others perceive you? Just Curious.

[Nottom]

Sometimes people think you are a winner if you have a big stack. Some people like to have a big stack because it means they like to have enough to weather the bad streak that they might hit in a session. As long as you don't change your style of play and loosen up just because you have a big stack I can't really see any downside to buying in for more than most and it certainly can have an upside at times. Of course in No Limit a big stack is a completely different story.

[Mike Gallo]

Jeff,

I buy in for usually 5 stacks of chips. This will allow me to start building a pyramid.

If you read Gambling Theory and Other Topics, Mason explains the big buy in approach.

It helps my game to buy in for a lot of chips.

[Ed Miller]

A guy bought into my 20-40 game the other day for ten racks. The table talked about him constantly for the next hour or so. He promised to be "the action" for the table... though his play didn't support that.

In any event, buying in big definitely has an effect on people. I think it's always a good idea to have a big stack.

[Lou Krieger]

[ QUOTE ]
A guy bought into my 20-40 game the other day for ten racks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ten racks? Where is this game? Is the guy a regular?

I think there's a big advantage to buying in for a sufficient number of chips to look formidable, like buying in for two racks in a $20-$40 game, but ten racks...wow, that just looks silly!
_____
Lou Krieger
Raise your game with Lou Krieger, author of "Poker For Dummies," at Royal Vegas Poker.
http://www.royalvegaspoker.com/lou

[Ed Miller]

Ten racks? Where is this game? Is the guy a regular?

I think there's a big advantage to buying in for a sufficient number of chips to look formidable, like buying in for two racks in a $20-$40 game, but ten racks...wow, that just looks silly!

Hehe... this was at Muckleshoot near Seattle about a week ago. It was an Asian kid, early 20s. I had never seen him there before. He clearly did it for effect. He was talking about how much action he was going to give. It was funny because I would probably characterize his play as a little bit weak-tight. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Dynasty, Clarkmeister, HDPM and I all bought in for ten racks in the Monte Carlo 4-8 game six months ago. At least we were amused. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

But I agree completely. I recommend everyone buy in for two racks. People at Muckleshoot constantly ask me if I ever lose. It definitely affects how people play against me... in a positive way.

[Bozeman]

I think ten racks has -EV, if only from dropped chips or people taking one when you aren't looking.

[Dynasty]

We got the idea after doing it in the Bicycle 3-6 crazy pineapple game. In that game, I bought in for about 150 big bets. Clarkmeister bought in for about 6 or 7. So did Rick Nebiolo and his lady. We got the attention of the entire room.

[Franchise (TTT)]

Doesn't everyone up and leave with four of you crazies at the table? Or are they licking their chops unawaringly?

[Al_Capone_Junior]

I generally buy in for two racks.

Although a real big buy-in might have some benefit, it's much more obvious how much of a disadvantage a real small buy-in can be. People take shots at you because you're obviously playing scared.

al

[FeliciaLee]

I always buy in for the minimum in a limit game (in chips), while tucking an extra 10-20x big bets under my chips in cash. I never, ever go "all-in."

I have heard all sides of the "psychological" argument regarding buy-in's, but I am just not affected psychologically. Big buy-in's think that somehow since I don't have a lot of "chips" in front of me, per se, that I am playing scared money. Not true, cash works just as well as chips. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

The reason I buy in for the minimum is not a psychological ploy in itself, btw, I just don't like to have lots of chips in front of me to get in my way. I am constantly moving seats to get a better advantage over certain opponents. I want my moves to be swift and easy, in between hands. I want the table area in front of me to be relatively free of chips.

I always try to sell some of my chips to opponents who run out, if they ask, as well as coloring up the reds to greens and greens to black if the floorman has some.

This has nothing to do with anyone else. I just like to "pack light," so to speak!

[squiffy]

Felicia what kind of moves do you typically make. I have read that you want to be in different positions re: a loose player who raises a lot, a tight passive player who always has the nuts and only raises with top top hands, etc.

I guess you want to be to the left of a super tight rock so you can get out of the hand if he raises in front of you.

But I am not sure what other PLAYER TYPEs you should consider and where you should be sitting in relationship to them.

[Sloth]

Big Rocks it doesn't matter where you sit in relation to. You can safely laydown to a raise even after limping.

You want aggressive/maniac players to your right, and loose passive calling stations to your left.

If you can get very tight players next to you and 1 past to the left, you can steal the blinds more often and also "buy the button" enough to make a late raise much more profitable.

[Ed Miller]

The general rule is to put the worst player(s) at the table on your right. A large percentage of the money you make in a typical poker game comes from the very worst players, and having position on them will be a big boon for you.

Things to avoid:

* Particularly unpredictable players on your left
* If you chop, a player on your left that doesn't chop
* A habitual blind stealer two or three to your right
* A habitual blind straddler on your immediate left (you would prefer not to be in the blind when he straddles)

Otherwise, just put the loose money on your right.

[squiffy]

[Al_Capone_Junior]

As long as you have enough to play one hand for the max bets all the way, it really makes little actual difference.

The difference comes in the MINDS (or lack of them) of your opponents. Whether it makes any difference or not, they will sometimes play more aggressively towards a small stack, even if bills are obviously underneath. Of course if you can handle it, as I am sure you can, it might actually do you good to have the "short stack."

There are exceptions to my "general" rule of buying two racks. Once I was in a 4-8 kill game and a known maniac/super-aggressive player sat down. I had about $220 in $1 chips at the time. The first three hands he was in, he bet/raised/reraised his way from terrorist to table dictator, winning all three pots without being called, and I KNEW he didn't have squat (but then, neither did I). Being one who doesn't like to bend over to such tactics, I called the floor and order THREE more racks of chips.

Psychological / counter-psychological!

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

you want the ROCKS to your left so you can drive them out of the pot when you wish to limit the field. they will be in either way if they have a hand, but will fold more often if you raise before they act.

you want the MANIACS to your right, so you don't keep getting raised by them when you have marginal hands. I like to raise/reraise THEM, not the other way around. There is some dissent as to this theory, some actually LIKE the maniacs on their left so they can reraise, or check-raise. The only time I like this is when they have an OBVIOUS telegraph and I am playing live with them. Other than that, I much prefer them on my right, NOT my left.

The calling stations really make little difference, since they will call all bets from any position anyway. If there are no rocks and no maniacs, I suppose it's SLIGHTLY better if they are on your right, so you can raise them after they call, but again, it really it makes little difference.

Good players are an enigma... If they are real tight, or even weak-tight (but not rocks), then you would probably rather have them on your left. If they are very skilled but somewhat loose-aggressive, it's better they are on your right. It never hurts to just sit on the exact opposite side of good players so as to limit your interaction with them.

al

[Al_Capone_Junior]

As an addendum to my post, I'd like to attach kong's post to the end of my own. Very good thoughts Kong.

al

p.s. check your PMs

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
Doesn't everyone up and leave with four of you crazies at the table? Or are they licking their chops unawaringly?

[/ QUOTE ]

What would you do if four players at your table bought in for 100+ big bets each?

[CrackerZack]

[sucka]

How the hell did you guys stack 10 racks of chips on those monte carlo tables?? They have that wooden 'lip' that always annoys the heck outta me when I play there. I usually buy-in for 2 racks and found it somewhat difficult to manage my stack with that wooden lip thing in my way.

That would be pretty funny though - although, if I saw 4 players load up like that and sit down at my table I'd probably wait a few hands to see what they were up to first. If the game got really crazy (as I'm sure it did) I'd probably take my money elsewhere and find a better game. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Wake up CALL]

[ QUOTE ]

What would you do if four players at your table bought in for 100+ big bets each?

[/ QUOTE ]

Rob them!

[Dynasty]

Those tables weren't very good for monster buy-ins.

At the Bicycle, my pyramid was 100 chips high at the center.

[Howard Burroughs]

Two tourists hit high hands on that table early into the session (in the $400+ range). So there was that much more $ on the table.

My $300 buy-in looked pretty small.


I played in there a week later and everyone in the room was still talking about that game!


best,

Howard

[CrackerZack]

This whole idea is now intriguing to me... I think I may try it now. Depends on how much cash the ATM will give me. Maybe I'll wait till vegas so I can use the $1 chips in the 1-4-8-8 game.

[squiffy]

Last night, playing on Pacific Poker, was a player named TAXYU. He bought in at a 1-2 table with $6003. It was hilarious. He played about 2 rounds and then left. I wonder if this means the game was too tight and not profitable. It may just mean he wanted to go to bed. But I have been making money at Party and losing money at Pacific, and wonder if I am just not good enough to handle games which to mean seem much slower and much tighter and more passive than at Party. At Party I am slightly positive, up about $1400 over 3 months at $1-2. At Pacific I am down about $100 after playing about a month.

I like the Pacific graphics, but hate the slow pace.

Anyway, I wonder why anyone would keep $6000 on a poker site. And why they would bring it all to a $1-2 table. Honestly, I would be afraid to have a large amount of money online in case some insider or employee tries to commit some kind fraud.

[NutCrackerr]

Personally I like to buy in for double the default on-line.
2 reasons:
1) I've found that I have a tendancy to play better when I have a larger stack.
2) I think it does intimidate new players who join your game and assume you started with the default and your big stack is the result of your winning play.

Just my 2 cents.

[CrackerZack]

Probably because he didn't feel like typing in an amount to bring. Its easier to just bring your whole bankroll in. 6K on a site isn't so much, I don't play higher than 5-10 but have had up to 3K floating around online quite a bit. You need a bankroll to play.

[squiffy]

At Pacific Poker you have to type in an amount. I don't think there is a default option. And TAXYU didn't need $6000 to play at a $1-$2 poker table. This was not $5-$10 or $15-$30.

[CrackerZack]

When you sit down, you have 2 choices at pacific, "Entire bankroll" which is default, and an empty space to enter an amount. Its definitely crazy and probably bragging, but could be just lazy.