The min buy-in regular

[Sponger15SB]

I saw a guy burn through $200 in $20 increments at $2/4 one time, it was the weirdest thing i've ever seen. its like dude just buy in for $100 2x or something so you don't have to keep on going all in and creating side pots all the damn time.

[Evan]

I see it a lot in the NYC 1/2 NL games. People rourinely buy in for 50-100, bust out, then rebuy for 250 (the max around here). I don't why, but it's almost always a sure sign that they're awful.

[TomCollins]

I saw some kid buy in for $5 at a $10 minimum blackjack table. That was funny.

[TimM]

[ QUOTE ]
I've seen it a bit at foxwoods. Some of the regular/semi-regular fish will may make multiple 400 minimumum buy-ins.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was told that at 500, the dealer has to call the floor to check it. I saw one dealer hold up the game because he couldn't get floor attention, while another in the same situation just pretended someone saw it.

[mmcd]

Thats true, but instead of showing up to the game with 2 racks from the cage (the default IMO), these guys will just come to the table and buy in for the 400 minimum. ALso, some dealers don't even bother calling the floor over and will sell 800-1000 in chips. I'm personnally not a big fan of buying in to the game from the table beccause the constant fills waste a lot of time. Theres nothing worse than being at a table with an empty chip tray, and having to take 20s from the guy next to you every time he wants to put a bet in because he is one of these minbuy types. If he had 100s I'd tolerate it, but 20s, that just irks me.

[sucka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
When/how is it an advantage to play short-stacked?

[/ QUOTE ]
Say you have a marginal hand, one that is probably behind your opponent, but has some decent outs like a flush draw with a gutshot. By going all-in, you are giving yourself significantly better odds of making your hand and winning the pot than if you have to play it "correctly". And, the earlier you can go all-in with that hand, the better.

Sklansky discusses this aspect of all-in play in HFAP I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

While there may some credence to this, with regards to the math - the whole idea of playing consistently shortstacked is asanine.

First off, you aren't a moron who is going to be playing longshot hands every time. The majority of time, you are going to be in the pot (at least past the flop) with the best hand - or a draw to the best hand and you WANT a stack in front of you.

I best saw this concept applied in Lake Charles where I was playing at a table with a nice kid who was up with his friends from Texas A&M. He loses a pretty big pot and gets down to about $15 in front of him. I ask him if he's going to continue playing and he says, "Yes". I ask him if he's going to rebuy and he says, "No, I can win it back..." with a smile.

About 3 hands later - he flops a small straight flush and is all in for $3 on the flop. Meanwhile, one of his opponents had flopped the Ace high flush and when a fourth spade falls on the river - the king high flush comes to life.

So, the guy lost out on about $80 bucks.

If you suck, yeah, get your money in before on the flop and then let implied odds take care of the rest.

If you are 'good' - then playing short stacked is moronic.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
When/how is it an advantage to play short-stacked?

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe it was Mason who opined that at least for 7CS, a player who could be all-in every hand for the antes alone would likely be the biggest winner in the long run, since he would always receive seven cards.

[MaqEvil]

At the place I usually play, at the last table, there's a constant cycle of bad, dumb high school kids buying in for 30 bucks in a 3/6 game, busting and being replaced by another.