can anbody help on this question about buyins

[aaccee]

which is best?

to buyin into a no limit 0.50/$1 game with
min. $40 or maximum $100
or is there an optimun buyin amount?

[PseudoPserious]

I don't know that much about NL, but since no-one else is answering you I'll try to help.

From what I've read, if you're a good player, it's better to have a larger stack than your opponents. So, buy-in for the max amount.

PP

[TommyTutone]

I think with NL the bigger the stack the better. In limit you want at least 12 BBs at any time. The reason for both is that you have the flexibility to bet at all times with the cards you have.

Nothing is sadder than seeing some poor sad sack with $2 at the table get dealt pocket aces and know that he's going to miss out on a LOT of cash.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
which is best?
to buyin into a no limit 0.50/$1 game with
min. $40 or maximum $100
or is there an optimun buyin amount?


[/ QUOTE ]

In general, it is an advantage to have a smaller stack.

Play is more complicated when there are deep stacks, but you also may be able to win more from weaker players. That is why many players recommend having as much money on the table as possible. However, if you don't have a skill advantage, you should win on average if you have a very short stack, and lose on average when you have one of the largest stacks.

One reason it is better to have a small stack is that it is an advantage to be all-in. You can't fold a hand that will eventually win if you are all-in. Suppose you are all-in preflop. It could be that a hand that would beat you on the river folds on the flop to a bet by another deep stack, allowing you to triple up or more when you "should" have lost.

Another reason to prefer a shorter stack is that you can change the types of hands you play (and the bets you make). If everyone had a short stack, everyone would make that adjustment. If some people have deep stacks, they will not be playing the best hands to take your money, but you will be playing the best hands to take as much of theirs as you can.

Here is an example of a more dynamic situation: Everyone folds to you on the button. You raise all-in for 4x the BB. If the small blind and big blind have deep stacks, the SB will be able to call you with a better hand less frequently than if the small blind and big blind have stacks only slightly larger than yours. The SB has to worry that calling your bet will leave the SB exposed to a raise by the BB, who will have position on the remaining streets.

In practice, if you have to ask, you may be better off buying in for less so that you lose less when you lose your stack.

[Chris Daddy Cool]

I strongly disagree.

Yes, there are advantages to having shortstacks, specifically the ability to go allin and suckout on hands you "should" have lost.

However, if you are a good player, it is more important to have a deeper stack because your superior play will allow yourself to take chunks out of other big stacks. The last thing you want is to have a short stack with the nuts and someone who has you well covered goes all in on you.

[jdl22]

The best advice I've heard on this subject is that you want to have more money at the table than the fish and less money than the sharks.

You want to have the fish covered so that you can take all of their money if and when they make a mistake. However you want to have less than the sharks because you are much more likely than them to make a mistake that costs the entire stack.

So it comes down to your assessment of the game. If the game is good (lots of bad players) then buy in for the full amount. If the game has players better than you but you still want to play it (perhaps it's the only game around or you want to try to improve your play by playing good competition) then buy in for less.

[daryn]

sounds like you're playing at foxwoods