[rachelwxm]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And I'm sure you have the sample size to prove it? 1 or 2 bb/100 over 30,000 hands is very big.

[/ QUOTE ]
You don't think I have enough hands? What's next, will you say that I probably buy in short because I am underbankrolled, or some other speculative nonsense? That's usually how these discussions have gone in the past. To forestall that, I am massively overbankrolled for the highest NL game I play regularly, NL 400. Despite this, when I play NL 100, I usually buy in short, and I have for the past 20k NL 100 hands. I usually didn't buy in short for the first 20k hands. My win rate hasn't changed noticeably between those.

However, even if my win rate drops by 2 BB when I buy in short, it would still mean that buying in for $50 at a NL $100 table is much more profitable than buying in for $50 at a NL $50 table. Winning 8 BB/100 ($16/100) at NL 100 is better than winning 12 BB/100 ($12/100) at NL 50. (Actually, according to PokerTracker, my win rate is higher at NL 100 than NL 50, but I didn't use my observed win rates.) So, your suggestion (which is not supported by my evidence) argues for buying in short at a higher stakes game.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think buying 25 at 50NL has a higher hourly rate than buyin full at 25NL especially if there is alot of raising pf. I have some success at 400-1000NL games.

I think the general knowledge in this forum is
Buyin short = moron/fish/(stupid guy who push 22 pf)

This is far from truth. I think it requires different skills to be successful.

I hate playing against short buyings btw.