Immediately buying back in for the minimum after leaving a limit game

[AffleckKGB]

Besides BG, you can read Sklansky in TPFAP for the obvious explanation.

[CardSharpCook]

It drives me crazy when players buy-in for the minimum. It allows weaker players to keep me from out-playing them on the flop. When HU, I'll refuse to play an opponent that is too short stacked. However, I don't see the difference btwn leaving and coming back or simply rebuying. I clicked the bad ettiquette button.

I know that in some book some author goes into detail about why 7CS would be beatable if you could buy in for 1 or 2 BBs and if you left you would sit down with the minimum again. UB actually has something like this. They let you buy in the 7CS with one bet. I have no idea about the LHE games on UB though. I don't think there is an advantage at stars though, if there is it is minimal and it doesn't happen often.

[LarsVegas]

While you are here Lee, I would like you to consider one change regarding these new "Deep Stacks" tournaments you have added. As with a host of other inventions in your tournament-lobby, this was yet another quality addition. However, the structure is just a little bit TOO kind, it takes TOO long and I mean, 4 hours with a lot of play in your stack without adding to your starting stack is enourmous. I would suggest you go from 30 minutes intervals to 20 minutes. It will still be a fantastic tournament for those seeking a slow structure in small buy-in online tournaments.

Oh, and I think allowing min. buy-ins at any time for a limit game is fine.

Lars

No changes, it's purrfect.

[durrrr]

Greenstein was wrong if you want to nitpick on his advice. If the normal minimum buyin in a LHE game was 100BB, then some1 buying in for 25BB would not have an inherent advantage. If however the normal buyin was 5BB (like it is on stars), and some1 were allowed to buyin for 1.25BB they would make a killing.

i dont know if you meant to reply to me, but I've never read BG's book

[ QUOTE ]
If however the normal buyin was 5BB (like it is on stars), and some1 were allowed to buyin for 1.25BB they would make a killing.

[/ QUOTE ]

this i believe(and what i was referring too) are inside a 2+2 book. I know that narrows it down alot [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

here's my take:
essentially, it PROBABLY wouldn't matter. however, if someone were to double their stack, leave the table, and then immediately buy-in for the original amount, they may have have an advantage by limitiing their risk. say they started w/10BB and went up to 20BB. without cashing out, they may say to themselves, i won't let myself go below my original 10BB buy-in. next thing you know, they get AA cracked by your 35o straight while they're holding trip A's, and they are down to 8BB. if you allow them to take the money off the table, they will be all-in before they can go back below the original 10BB, and will be taking out any possibility that they will be losing any money to the table.
the two ways of making money are maximizing profits and minimizing costs and/or risk in this case.
this may sound a little far-fetched, but it's just a few of my thoughts on the matter.

It limits some of the swings but why would it be more effective? Its not like you can go allin vs the blinds with 10BB. But if some people complain I see no reason not to raise it to 20BB. If you have 2000 to blow you probably have 4000. With 5BB it starts to become unfair imo.

[stigmata]

Yeah just raise the minimum buyin to perhaps 15 or 20BB, problem solved. If they can't afford to buyin to the game with this much, they shouldn't really be playing