No maximum Buy-in NL games

[RiverRider]

Hi,

Do you guys know any online pokerrooms where we can play No maximum buy-in NL Texas-Holdem games? I would prefer blinds of 1$/2$ and below.

Thanks

[AncientPC]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi,

Do you guys know any online pokerrooms where we can play No maximum buy-in NL Texas-Holdem games? I would prefer blinds of 1$/2$ and below.

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

TGC Poker has a table for $100/$200 blinds, 2,000/20,000 min/max buy-ins.

AFAIK all online NL tables have a max buy-in. Otherwise it'd give an advantage to the player with the biggest bankroll (although at the same time playing with your entire bankroll is stupid).

[J-Lo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi,

Do you guys know any online pokerrooms where we can play No maximum buy-in NL Texas-Holdem games? I would prefer blinds of 1$/2$ and below.

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

TGC Poker has a table for $100/$200 blinds, 2,000/20,000 min/max buy-ins.

AFAIK all online NL tables have a max buy-in. Otherwise it'd give an advantage to the player with the biggest bankroll (although at the same time playing with your entire bankroll is stupid).

[/ QUOTE ]

That is one thing i do not understand.... How can having more money on the table an advantage? In tourney's i can see how it is advantageous... But in a game where you can go into your pocket and pull out more money, i see no advantage with having a big stack...

[AncientPC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hi,

Do you guys know any online pokerrooms where we can play No maximum buy-in NL Texas-Holdem games? I would prefer blinds of 1$/2$ and below.

Thanks

[/ QUOTE ]

TGC Poker has a table for $100/$200 blinds, 2,000/20,000 min/max buy-ins.

AFAIK all online NL tables have a max buy-in. Otherwise it'd give an advantage to the player with the biggest bankroll (although at the same time playing with your entire bankroll is stupid).

[/ QUOTE ]

That is one thing i do not understand.... How can having more money on the table an advantage? In tourney's i can see how it is advantageous... But in a game where you can go into your pocket and pull out more money, i see no advantage with having a big stack...

[/ QUOTE ]

When there are two big stacks at a table, they can essentially up the blinds making it unprofitable for the smaller stacks to call with certain hands.

Say I'm at a NL 25 table and everyone has $25 stacks. I have 99 and someone raises to $3. I call after 1 other person calls hoping to make a set.

Say I'm at the same NL 25 table with a $25 stack. There are 2 other big stacks with $75 on either side of me. The one on the right raises to $3, I call. The one on the left reraises it to $6. I call again. This play is -EV in the long run, because I'm calling with a medium PP for set value for a quarter of my stack.

Even if I hit my set, I only get paid off a max of $50. If I had a stack of $100 (covering the other 2 big stacks), I could potentially make $150.

For this same reason I do not understand why people buy in less than the maximum at NL tables. On Party NL 25, you'll see people buying in for as little as $10. When I raise pre-flop, it's never going to be less than $3. If they ever call my $3 pre-flop raise, it's basically setting them all-in at that point as the pot is at least the same size as their stack.

Does that make sense? If there are any problems in my line of thinking, someone else more knowledgeable than I will probably point out my errors.

[Riskwise]

in the simplest way ive been able to put it that helps me, is that your paying $3 bucks for a set that you hit say 1 out of 5 times, and if they payout for that set is not 5x $3 ($15) then it is not worth calling the $3 hoping to improve. If you have more money, you will get payed out alot more. I think that the fishiest tables on party are the NL 25 tables, all because of EV ignorance.

[Zag]

[ QUOTE ]
When there are two big stacks at a table, they can essentially up the blinds making it unprofitable for the smaller stacks to call with certain hands.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a silly argument. If they "essentially up the blinds" by which I assume you mean that one or the other or both of them raise preflop on every single hand, you have a hugely profitable situation. It is true that there are now hands that would be profitable when you can limp and are no longer profitable. However, it is also true that there are hands which were somewhat profitable and are now hugely profitable.

Imagine playing three handed in a game where is a small blind, a medium blind, and a big blind. However, when it is your turn to pay the big blind, you get to look at your cards first and not pay it if you don't want to. (The other two players always have to pay it on their turn.) Don't you think you could beat any two people in the world in this game? That is essentially what you are talking about.

Just dump those hands that need implied odds to play (88-22, A-small suited, connectors, suited or not). Reraise with those hands that are probably way ahead (JJ-AA and AK, maybe AQ), wiping out the reverse implied odds. Once they have you pigeon-holed as a nit and fold whenever you raise, reraise occasionally as a bluff. Increase spice to taste. Note that they have to pay a lot more attention to each other, giving you a chance to slide in under the radar. They will adjust to your changes more slowly, which you can take big advantage of.

Note that the advantage is not because they are big stacks, but because they are too aggressive preflop. For anyone in the game with a stack bigger than yours, his actual stack size is irrelevent. He can't do any more than cover your stack. The fact that he can do it once, twice, or thirty times is only relevent on later hands. The only exception is if you are so small relative to him that he ignores you, which means you can pick your spot and he will gladly double you up.

[Riskwise]

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine playing three handed in a game where is a small blind, a medium blind, and a big blind. However, when it is your turn to pay the big blind, you get to look at your cards first and not pay it if you don't want to. (The other two players always have to pay it on their turn.) Don't you think you could beat any two people in the world in this game? That is essentially what you are talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. He said that they up the blinds, but he never said they play EVERY SINGLE HAND. The have an advantage by making the small stacks have fewer profitable hands to play. Like we talked about before, how they can ruin the small stacks EV so that it would be a horrible play to draw out on them. The main thing it effects are big drawing hands. So if you have a small pocket pair, it is not worth calling a big chunk of your stack like 30% where if you hit it, you cant get enough out of it for it to make up all the times you missed.

[The4thFilm]

Implied odds become insane. If you can take someone's entire $1,000,000 stack with a $1 BB then any 2 cards are worth playing.

[PITTM]

if you get a really good hand you will have everyone covered i guess?

rj

[RiverRider]

By the way, I wasnt planning to put 10K on a 1$/2$ table but I think that the 50BB-100BB is not enough. I prefer to play with a deep stack so I can play the game in a different way. 200-250BB would be nice.