?? Help w/ Buy-in amount

I play holdem at the 2/4 - 5/10 levels and would consider myself a good but timid/tight player. I want to become more of an aggressive player and have more of an aggressive image at the table. When I play others who have large stacks and bet very often(aggressively) I DO get intimidated - I don't want this to happen. Now my question - to be seen as aggressive how many chips should I buy-in for to be seen this way by others. Thanks for any suggestions. P.S. at those levels my bankroll is large enough to buy-in for any amount.

Timothy,


I think the correct question to ask is, how do I become a more aggressive player.


I do not think that a correlation exists between buying in for more chips and becoming a more aggressive player.


The players you describe have big stacks perhaps because they have won them.


Be cautious of buying in for too much or those players you describe will be building their "large" stacks with your money. Just because you have more chips, doesnt mean they will fear you. They will just know you bought in for more.


I would suggest you become more aggressive, however that just my opinion.


Best Wishes


MK

You should never have your stack where it couldn't cover capped betting on all four rounds. So that's 48$ at 2-4 and 120$ at 5-10. However, if you want to play more aggressively, and you want your stack size to be more impressive, obviously you should buy more than the average amount of chips. Most people buy too few chips anyway, don't you be like that. I play in california, where the games are more aggressive on average. In 3-6 or 4-8 (full kill) games, I usually buy in for two racks, with two more bennies on reserve if I happen to have a run of less than stellar luck. I play pretty aggressively, and because I always have enough chips to fire with, my opponents can't scare me, and they know where I am coming from. For that matter, if an especially aggressive player sits and tries to run over the game, I sometimes buy even more chips. Once this player came and immediately started buying pots and bullying everyone. After one round of this, he had basically bought about 4 pots with hyper-aggressive betting. It was 4-8 with a kill and I had about two racks. However, I wasn't going to let him run over ME, so I called for two MORE racks, making sure it was noticed by all at the table. If you want to be more aggressive, you can't have a short stack, and you can't let anyone intimidate you. You gotta have big, cast iron cahones, draggin' on the ground behind you. If your bankroll can handle it, BUY MORE CHIPS. It can't hurt to have too many, but too few will not impress anyone. Get over the fear, too. Fear is for the weak. Weak-tight players stink of fear, aggressive players can smell it and do everything to exploit it.


Dave in Cali

"Be cautious of buying in for too much or those players you describe will be building their "large" stacks with your money."


I don't like this line of thinking. Assuming that other players will be building their stacks from yours is assuming that you will be losing your stack. This also implies that you should not have as many chips because you expect to lose them anyway, which implies that you know you are playing a losing game in the first place.


"Just because you have more chips, doesnt mean they will fear you. They will just know you bought in for more. "


Having plenty of chips doesn't mean they will fear you, this is true. But it might mean that they know you can't be bullied by their hyper-aggressive tactics. Players with big stacks, especially hyper-aggressive ones, love to take shots at players with small stacks. Never start a hand without enough chips to cap it on all rounds and you will never have this problem. You don't need an EXCESSIVE amount of chips, but it's still better than too few.


"I do not think that a correlation exists between buying in for more chips and becoming a more aggressive player."


Correct. However, you must still have enough to play like you mean it. Always have enough to cap it on all rounds, never go all-in.


Dave in Cali

Dave,


I thought you were going to start surfing more with that cute surfer chick?


Regarding the above post, excellent ideas. However, I wanted to point out to the original poster that there is more to becoming an "aggressive" player than just buying more chips.


It has been my experience that over the course of time players at a table respect the player, not his stack of chips. If he doesnt become more "aggressive" he will dontate them to the more aggressive players.


I also wanted to caution him that if he remained weak passive, all of the chips in the world can't help his game if he doesnt become more aggressive.


Take care and HANG TEN


MK

"I thought you were going to start surfing more with that cute surfer chick? "


Surfing schmurfing. My sport is girl-chasin', everything else is just minor details. However, I'll always suck up seaweed and bravely (or perhaps foolishly) risk my life again in the pursuit of happy-ness.


"It has been my experience that over the course of time players at a table respect the player, not his stack of chips. If he doesnt become more "aggressive" he will dontate them to the more aggressive players. "


Excellent point. It really doesn't matter whether I buy a rack, two racks, or just $80, the players who know me and play against me often give me the same respect (or lack of it) all the time either way. Same goes for my respect of other players.


"I also wanted to caution him that if he remained weak passive, all of the chips in the world can't help his game if he doesnt become more aggressive. "


Very true. One thing I take note of is people who always buy in for the minimum, or some amount that's considerably below the "capped threshold."* To me, this is an indication of "excessive conservatism", which is the diplomatic BS term for fear. How can you bravely make the bets and raises you need to make if you're constantly in danger of running out of chips? I've seen many instances where someone goes all-in on the flop or turn, and their lack of having enough chips causes them to miss a bet or raise that would have won them the pot, or causes them to lose several bets because they missed a value bet/raise. An example of this concept occurred in a hand I played recently:


I posted behind the button on this hand. It's a loose game and all but one limp into the pot before me. The button and the blinds are all loose and will probably call. I had QdJd and raised the pot. Eight took the flop for two bets each.


The flop was great for my hand: Tc 8d 4d. Two overcards, a gutshot to the nut str8, and a flush draw, can't complain. UTG bets and all call to me, I raise, the button and BB call, UTG goes all-in for his last $1, rest call.


The turn gives me the flush when the 2d hits. Checked to me, I bet, three call.


River is the 3c. Checked to me, I bet, two call.


I take the side pot with my flush. UTG has AdTd for the nut flush, top pair, and takes the main pot.


UTG lost a great deal of money on this hand by not having the chips to bet his hand. He could have reraised the flop, most likely resulting in no one dropping and me capping the pot. Who knows how much more he could have made on the turn and river, not to mention BTF. He probably would have gotten three bets just out of me alone on the turn and river. UTG did not buy in for enough chips, he is constantly buying $30 or $40 to play in a 3-6 kill game. This is just plain not enough ammo to be properly aggressive, and it clearly cost him big on this hand.


In a related example: recently, in a 3-6 kill game, I had lost some of my chips and was down to about 70$ when a kill pot situation came up. A new very loose player (LAG) was playing very aggressively. The dealer cut the cards, but before he could deal me a hand, I called for more chips, another rack. "$100 plays" said the dealer. I was in the SB with KK and The pot was capped BTF with four players. The flop was queen high. I bet, LAG raised, I reraised and he capped (3 players still in). I bet the turn and LAG raised, I called (still 3 players). I checked and called the river, as did the other player who was calling the whole way. My kings were good. That's $24 times three rounds, plus $12 on the river, which adds up to $90. I would have lost $40 had I not bought the extra chips. In a game where I'm expecting slightly more than one big bet per hour, that's more than six hours work. That should say it all about having enough chips to be properly aggressive.


It's scary when you put nearly a whole rack into the pot for a single hand, but you gotta have cast iron cahones to play this game if you wanna play it right. Fear is for the weak! Fear is not an option!


Dave in Cali


*the amount needed to cover capped betting on all rounds. this would be $72 in a 3-6 game. This also might be a term that I just made up...

Dave,


I had to write to tell you about a session I had tonight playing at a 4-8 game at the Tropicanna in Atlantic City.


I sat down at a 4-8 game that just started and I bought in for $100 and left with $280.


I still played tight aggressive and the number of chips I had didnt affect my game at all.


Best Wishes,


MK

100 is enough to sit down at 4-8, but if you lose a couple hands you should consider buying more. I don't think it's a horrible thing to have slightly less than the "capped threshold" number of chips, as it's very rare that the pot is capped on all four rounds. However, when you are in a very loose or aggressive game, you shouldn't start a hand with much fewer chips, it can just cost you too much. Anytime the number of chips you have affects your game so that you can't be properly aggressive, you have made a mistake and it will cost you.


Dave in Cali

1st of all "good" and "tight/timid" should not be used in the same sentence unless it involves the "good" player taking all the "tight/timid" player's money.


With that said, I feel comfotable buying in for 25 big bets. I'm not sure what you others are buying in with, but that it what I don't mind losing (if it goes that way). If I lose it, I go read a book and hope to find a reason how I lost. I find the only way I lose is by playing a few weak hands out of position and then I tilt like a shitty pinball machine. The morale of the story is, as you have all said before, if you are weak/tight there simply is not a big enough bankroll for you.


What do the rest of you think about a 25 big bet buy-in? Too much/little?


Gary W.


PS: spell check is not working, I kant spell /images/smile.gif

"What do the rest of you think about a 25 big bet buy-in? Too much/little? "


25 big bets at a 4-8 game would be $200. That's perfect IMO, and is exactly what I usually buy in for. You have more than enough chips to play properly, which is the primary consideration. Your buy-in could be less, but I like your 25 big bet rule, it works just fine.


Dave in Cali

Not only that, if you are down 25 big bets, you are likely in the wrong game anyway. Why torture yourself any more. You have a big hill to get back to good and the ego is probably mush! The target on you will be HUGE, no reason to give them the KY - just leave. /images/smile.gif


Gary W.