In a limit game, does size matter?

[donkeyradish]

Speaking about the pile of chips in front of you, that is!

ie. Regardless of whether you have been winning or losing, does simply having more $ sitting in front of you than your opponents help or hinder your confidence and/or your table image?

And so is there added value in bringing to the table, 2 typical buy-ins instead of one (for example)?

[Kaeser]

Well what do you think when you sit down at the table and one guy has significantly more chips then the rest? I know I generally watch his play to see how he got all those chips I'm sure most weak players would just assume that you were a good player and that would make them easier to push around.

[AZnuts]

I tend to think of this in reverse psychology terms . . . if a guy brings in for way more than a standard buy-in, I first see him as a less than average player desperately looking for some other edge than his poker play.

Because, if you really are a proven winning player - do you want to bring attention to it at a low stakes limit game? It's not really possible to "push people around" like you might be able to in a no-limit game.

I like to just blend in and play solid poker, and think other decent players would too, so if you're drawing attention to yourself with a huge buy in, something smells fishy.

[BigBaitsim (milo)]

Strong players pay little attention to chip stacks. Weak players pay attention. They fear the big stack instictively. They envy the big stacks luck or skill (whichever they are impressed by more). They covet the big stack's chips, which changes their play.

The most important thing to remember is that some players (weak players) will change their play against a big stack. Some will play tighter and weaker, fearing the stack. Some will play stupider, intimidated by the stack. Some will play more aggressively, in an attempt to usurp the stack.

The key here is to not use chips to manipulate your table image so much as to recognize how having these chips has changed your opponents' play, if at all, and exploit these changes.

Recognizing and exploiting your table image is of much greater value than attempting to create a table image.

[mosdef]

i realize that this is a limit thread, but in no-limit i always pay attention to what people buy in for. it seems to me that a min buyin is a huge tell that that person is not good. most good players buy in for the max at a no-limit game, or at least that's the way it seems to me. am i wrong?

[Cerril]

Well the actual style of your play changes depending on your stack size versus the size of the BB (and that of your opponents) in a NL game. Bigger stacks usually mean people who want to gamble more or think they're better (though I have a few friends who think they're amazing and play at higher stakes than they oughta so usually buy in for the minimum, so it goes the other way too).

In a limit game, with a modest stack you can't get all your chips involved in on one hand so there's no practical difference between 12BB and an infinite stack, only a psychological one.

If I don't have a read on a new table, I'll always want to sit to the left of a big stack, because either he bought in high, meaning he wants action (or better, has a history of losing a bunch), or he built it up, meaning he has been playing a reasonable number of hands, probably aggressively.

Personally, I like to buy in at a level where I won't lose table image the first time my trips get beaten, but not outrageous. Around 25 BB.

[otter]

I'm sure it does matter. In fact when I used to play in a home game regurlarly (5-10), I'd buy in for one or 2 racks. People would come to the game later in the night and always see me with the chips. One person even said to another person at the table as he walked in, "There he is w/ all the chips again. It's intimidating knowing you have to try to knock down that mountain. Ever since then I made sure to buyin to most limit games for more than average.

In the very low stakes limit games that I play, the typical opponent is much too loose and dumps way too much money onto the pot with marginal or nothing hands.

Therefore, trying to make opponents feel threatened by me would not be a +EV move, as then they'd be more likely to fold. So buying in for more than the minimum doesn't sound like a great move.

[Brom]

An interesting side note: Dan Negreanu is from around my area and frequented many of the casinos that I do today (before my time). Every local that I have ever talked to about him says he always buys in with massive stacks for the limit games i.e. 1500-2000 for 5/10, and 3k+ for 10/20. I don't know the reasoning for it, but he seemed to like it.

I find that I personally play better when my chip stack is above the average chip stack at the table. I can't explain it, and I realize it's kind of stupid, but it just makes me feel more secure.

When I see other big stacks at the table, especially when they are significantly larger than the average stack size, I assume they are a LAGish player who caught an upswing. LAGs tend to have a higher SD, and therefore are prone to some very large swings.

I like to sit to the left of these people for the reasons mentioned above. It also seems to me that some of the typically sane players, who don't get out of line too much, play looser when they are up big. This may be the psychological factor of having so much chips in front of them that they feel they can afford to lose more. Or that they just had a swing of good luck and now have a feeling of invincibility.

People with more chips tend to have more gamble in them.