No maximum Buy-in NL games

[Ghazban]

His point is that he'll only get $30 out of this 3-way all-in pot with his AA whereas, if he had the other 2 stacks covered, he'd make $150 (assuming, of course, the AA holds up as its favored to). You want to have more than the poorer players at the table so that, when they make a mistake, you can take their entire stack.

[bigfishead]

too many know it alls with no clue in this thread whatsoever.

FSUplayer has it exactly correct. No fish = no game = no rake.

Good players have a huge edge over weakies. Over 90% of the players are weakies. Weakies broke....no game. Was proven many years ago...Long before internet.

[AncientPC]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's not always true. I can get a $7 stack to call a $3 raise much easier than getting a $21 stack to call a $9 raise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? What are the blinds in this scenario? Are you talking preflop?

[/ QUOTE ]

I was referring to preflop on a Party's 25 NL table, or .5 blinds.

[ 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 ]


Whats TGC Poker? Is that a website? Did an internet search and only found something about "itv" out of the UK. I had always been under the impression that the UB game was the largest, not sure if you were joking or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

The Game Club Poker

[bunky9590]

Gaming club actually has a 200-400 blind HU no limit game with a 40k max.

Bugsy's club has a 1-2 no max buy, but I don't know how often it runs, haven't been on there in a while.

[jmark]

What's the max buyin on Intercasino poker? I thought it was pretty high relative to the blinds, but it's been awhile.

[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.

[Zag]

You can't have it both ways. If they are making you pay 25% of your stack to draw at them, the only way they can be doing this is by raising most hands preflop. (OK, not every single hand.) If they aren't raising too often, then you have your implied odds on the drawing hands (unless you are just too small-stacked for the blinds, but that's another problem).

If they always raise only when you have limped out of position, then fold your speculative hands in that situation, but limp-reraise with the big hands. You can still play your speculative hands when you have position and they have only limped.

The bottom line is that I agree, you can't play speculative hands for 25% of your stack. Recognize when that is likely to be an issue and don't put yourself in that position without also turning tables on them. Note that you only have to limp-reraise once for 3 limp-folds (assuming they are making pot-sized raises when you limp) and you still make a profit.

A more fundamental bottom line is that, if people are doing something too often, whether it is raising, calling, or folding, you can take advantage of it. The farther they are from "correct" strategy, the easier and more profitable it is to take advantage.