The right buy in price....
 

Ok I started playing with a limited bankroll of 100 in 25 NL, and because of suggestions from 2+2ers I would just buy in for half the buy in of 12.50. Well by doing this I have found alot of success and have gotten my roll up to 500 dollars in about a week, by just playing no whoring or anything. So do I continue doing this or do I step it up and do the full buy in thing?

Re: The right buy in price....
 

since you now have a roll that is appropriate for that level, you should definitly buy in for the maximum. i don't know who told you to buy in short... it's almost always a bad idea. sure, you won't lose as much, but i think it's 'unhealthy' to base your strategys around trying to lose less. you are trying to WIN MORE... (right?). personally, when i play NL holdem, i always buy in for the maximum, and if i drop more than 10% or so of the buy in, i reload to the max. i like to have as much or more than anyone else at the table, so i can get their whole stack if things line up right for me.

it looks like you've had a nice little run, don't be discouraged if it doesn't continue to go your way, tough it out and keep working on your game. you should definitly be bonus whoring now that you have $500- at least find an empire 20% bonus- long term you will actually make a lot more in bonus than in play until you hit a higher level than $25 N. There are so many good bonus oppurtunities out there that you're really giving up a lot (like $10more/hr) by not constantly whoring. tke a look at absolute, paradise, and eurobet (w/ a rakeback deal).. also, open a pokerstars acct- there is no sign up bonus, but they do have very nice occasional reloads that you'll want to be eligable for.

gl

b

Re: The right buy in price....
 

There are well documented reasons to buy in for the minimum (see GSIH for the minimum buy-in "system"), and its good enough for Barry Greenstein, so I don't think it is a terrible idea. Still, if you figure to be the best player at the table it is probably a good idea to buy in for the maximum.

Re: The right buy in price....
 

[ QUOTE ]
since you now have a roll that is appropriate for that level, you should definitly buy in for the maximum. i don't know who told you to buy in short... it's almost always a bad idea. sure, you won't lose as much, but i think it's 'unhealthy' to base your strategys around trying to lose less. you are trying to WIN MORE... (right?).

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't take this the wrong way, but this paragraph shows a total lack of understanding for the very legitimate reasons why someone might buy in for the minimum. It has nothing to do with trying to lose less. It has everything with avoiding situations where one has the worst of it (playing large-stack NLHE against more experienced opponents) and taking advantage of situations where you can easily have the best of it (wait on big pairs and raise - people will call you anyway). That has nothing to do with minimizing losses.

Yes, if you're the best NLHE player at the table, you should buy in for the max to maximize EV. If you're the best NLHE player at the table the first time you sit down, the opposition is even worse than at most low-stakes NLHE tables out there.

Re: The right buy in price....
 

[ QUOTE ]
i don't know who told you to buy in short... it's almost always a bad idea. sure, you won't lose as much, but i think it's 'unhealthy' to base your strategys around trying to lose less. you are trying to WIN MORE... (right?).

[/ QUOTE ]
My goal is to win. I'm massively overbankrolled, and have a healthy win rate of over 10 PTBB/100 at NL 100. I still buy in short much of the time.

It's like an urban legend that you should buy in for the maximum each time. That cookie recipe isn't genuine. It is an intrinsic advantage to buy in short, and you may not want to give that up to try to outplay people in big pots.

Re: The right buy in price....
 

Its also gratifying when your dinky 12.50 buy in becomes like a 57$ monster.