Buying Stack Size

[Irishfly]

Hey Guys, This is my first post although I have lurked for awhile and appreciate the huge amount of knowledge and help that you fellas throw around. Here is my Question---

I have been playing NLHE online for awhile now and have gradually moved up from grinding at the Micros to the verge of asking this in the other forum. Right now I play mostly 1/2 blinds NLHE online and live where the Maximum buyin is $200. Normally I buy in for $50 and play tight, semiaggressive and roll out at about $150. I know that the "Brunson" way of doing it would be to buyin for the max and try to keep a big stack so I can go over everyone often. Honestly, and I am a little ashamed to say, I can't play this way. There are a few reasons that I think this is. 1)I mostly play full 10 handed tables and have never been able to run over a full table. 2)Doesn't suit my style of play. and 3)I don't have the BR to finance two or three bust outs of $200 and not begin playing scared. (I tend to cash out winnings bimonthly and pay bills, buy pretty things etc.) I am averaging 8 to 9 BB per 100 by Pokertracker. My question is whether or not I am costing myself $$ by always having small stack at the table?

I tend to play poker with more of a Rapier than a Sledgehammer. Should I buy in for the full amount and play my style? I think I might be robbing myself of money to value bet with. But on the other hand, with the last four days of oversets and suckouts, I don't think I would be able to survive at $200 per. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Sorry for the R a m b l i n g.

D.

[Falker11]

Why not buy in for 50 at the .25/.5 buy in instead then. That way u have the max buy in and now you can bet the fullest on your great hands.
Falker

[Irishfly]

Thanks for the input. I don't think that my problem would be that I would run out of money (Bankroll) but that I would change my play if I took a bigger downswing. Maybe I should just Nut Up and play. The micro limits frustrate me as the quality of play is poor and I have to spend more time to make the same money (although I have made lots of money there). I feel like there is greater variance as well.

Thanks again,
D

[dtbog]

You don't have to play over-aggressively to benefit from having a large stack.

Example: you're on the button with 77. MP1 raises the $2 blind to $6, and there are three callers.

If you have $40 behind, you don't really have the implied odds to call. With a stack of $200, you certainly have more potential for getting a fair amount out of your set.

Also -- say you have AK in position, on a flop of AJ4r. $15 heads-up to the flop. He checks, you bet pot -- $15. If you started the hand with $40, you have less than $20 behind... you can't really get away when he check-raises all-in with AJ. If you have a stack, you can.

Situations like these are why I like to buy in for the full amount. With regard to the first point, if you need a smaller stack to force you to play tight -- I would say that this could be accomplished by a better true understanding of preflop play and implied odds.

Just my two cents, but everyone's different.
-DB