Buying in short in limit cash games

[einbert]

Okay, so recently there was a thread that talked about a subject in Barry Greenstein's new book. In the book, Barry talks about buying in short in both limit and no limit cash games as a way to get an extra edge.

From a recent thread here:
[ QUOTE ]
If you allowed a break-even player to buy in for one-fourth the normal minimum, he would easily be come a winning player, whether in limit or no-limit. The times that pots would be won because of being all-in would far outweight the times that an opponent could be bet out of a pot.

Try buying in as short as you are allowed. If you are allowed a short buy-in after a full buy-in, do it. If you try it for a while, this thread will become moot.

I gave the exceptions, the most noteworthy being that you are much better than your opponents. This is not the case for most of us, including me. Most of us, even the winners, are only marginally better than the opponents we play against. But with this and other management advice, and advice on how to think through a poker hand, many people who have read my book have become much more significant winners than they previously were.

[/ QUOTE ]
-barryg1
link to that thread

I have been trying this out at my normal game, the 5/10 shorthanded games on party. Party allows you to buy in for only 5BB (I think at most sites the min buyin is 10BB) and so I have gotten all in quite a few times, even though I've only spent about 6k hands using this strategy, obviously not enough to be anywhere near statistically meaningful. But I can definitely see why it might be advantageous to do this. I have been able to make a lot of profitable flop and turn calldowns and draws because of the great effective odds of being near all-in.

So I wanted to discuss exactly why this gives an edge, or perhaps we can get into a discussion as to whether it actually does. I would love for David to chime in, as I'm sure he has put some thought into this subject and is definitely the most qualified poker thinker here to comment on something like this.

But this is definitely a thread where I want to hear from anyone who has some ideas about this from a theoretical standpoint.

[JoshuaD]

Like I said over AIM, I think this is a sub-optimal strategy, but since your opponents are more inclined to make mistakes against you (including TAG's), you're going to have an advantange as long as people don't adapt.

That is, I think the strategy is sub-optimal, but blindsides alot of people into making mistakes.

I have no mathematical basis for that, just my impression.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
blindsides alot of people into making mistakes.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is definitely true.

The other day, a hand came up in one of my 5/10 games where I had $5.50 left after posting the $2 small blind.
Everyone folded around to me, and I went all in with A8o. The BB thought for a second and actually folded his hand getting 5-1! Even though he should have called had I turned over pocket aces, no matter what his hand.

People have made this mistake several times already, folding getting odds that are just too good against my short stack. It's hard to say, though, exactly how much EV this type of mistake will add to my longterm results. It is definitely something, though.

I'm not sure if you are taking into account all those times where you force your opponents to make the mistake they make the most - calling too much. In those big pots that you just want to build and build and build, you will be missing out on tons of missed bets that I don't think you can make up for simply by going all in more time in smaller pots. It's not about winning pots, it's about winning $$.

[einbert]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not about winning pots, it's about winning $$.

[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agree. In the hand where I raised and the BB was getting 5-1 to call, I wasn't happy he folded because I won the pot. I was happy he folded because it was a FTOP mistake for him to fold, even if I showed him aces. Given that I could have a lot of hands worse than aces, it's a pretty substantial mistake.

[ QUOTE ]
In those big pots that you just want to build and build and build, you will be missing out on tons of missed bets that I don't think you can make up for simply by going all in more time in smaller pots.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, sometimes the short player misses out on a few bets with the nuts. But also, other players are frequently more willing to call the short player down with weak hands simply because in online poker players tend to greatly distrust a player with a short stack. In addition, there are plenty of times where I make a strong hand and my opponent makes a stronger hand, it's not always that I have the upper hand. I'm not sure how much of my profit comes from going four or more BB on the turn and river with the best hand, but I have to think that the majority of my profit comes from my opponents making bad preflop and third street plays, or fundamentally bad fourth and fifth street plays rather than simply them going too many bets with the second best hand.


Against a certain type of opponent, namely a maniac who will cap all streets with any two cards, this strategy does seem suboptimal. But if that type of player enters the game, there is nothing stopping me from buying enough chips to have 12BB in front of me.

I think the key concept in this argument is your skill level compared to your opponents. If you are about even with the table, playing a short buy seems to be able to force them to make more mistakes, and put you into more favourable situations, thereby giving you an increase in your edge. If you are better than the players at your table, they are already making a number of mistakes that you are profiting from. In this latter situation, you want to be able to maximize the bets you can take. I now see the advantage of both situations... yet I still wonder what the break-even point is.

[CobraGoat]

i don't really see the upside to buying in short in limit games. in a couple of poker books i have read, the authors have suggested attacking short stacks. the idea seems to be that a short stack screams weakness with the authors, at least for limit, espousing the mantra, "go big or go home". i typically buy in for the max in limit.

HOWEVER, in no limit cash games, i strongly believe in buying in short. initially, after reading the the books i touched on above,i always bought in for the max when i played NL cash games. I had fair results. but i noticed a fair amount of people buying in very short and going all in a lot. i talked to one guy that i had noticed was doing this with, as far as i could tell,good results. he said his success in NL had improved when he moved to the short stack so i started doing it and i my results improved greatly.

i think part of the reason a short buyin is beneficial to NL cash games is that it limits the degree to which you can be bluffed out. so much of NL is bluffing, much more so than limit. a lot of NL players play the game like a pissing contest. when you buy in for the max you are immediatley susceptible to being pushed around by obscene bets. whereas, if you buy in short these big bluffers lose a large part of their game because they cant make that all in move to push you off superior hands.

granted, the downside is that you cant make as much money on your monster hands or when you make a correct call down. but the amount of money you can lose when you make a mistake coupled with the number of much more difficult decisions you are forced to make with an initially large stack, a short NL buy in seems to make more sense to me.

it has worked wonders for my general bankroll management.

sorry to babble on

[ QUOTE ]
i typically buy in for the max in limit.

[/ QUOTE ] There's no max buy-in for limit.

[CobraGoat]

nice call out.

you are right. i have only been playing limit for about 3 months at the 1/2 or 2/4 tables (maybe i should stick to the micro limit board?). i just assumed that if the suggested buy in was 50, that 100 was the max for the table (as is the case for NL). that is what i meant. i appologize for misspeaking.

Not a problem, just wanted you to be aware you can buy in for a ridiculous amount if you wanted to. Best of luck, sir.