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

[durrrr]

i believe most limit players, especially the higher limit ones, would much rather have a lower amount that you can buyin for (so that more fishies come). Personally i rarely play high stakes limit anymore, but i'm pretty sure the above would be true. However in NL i'd rather have the minimum buyin raised... quite a bit.

[punter11235]

[ QUOTE ]
believe he meant really short buyins (i.e. 2 big bets). IMO having 5 big bets is a large amount, and any advantage either way is incredibly insignificant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Keep in mind that constantly lowering your stack to 5BB increase your chances of getting one of those 1/2BB good situations so its definitely +EV for "abuser". Diffrent matter is that its probably very tiny advantage and not many players can make good use out of it.

Best wishes

[punter11235]

[ QUOTE ]
If the normal minimum buyin in a LHE game was 100BB, then some1 buying in for 25BB would not have an inherent advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

They would have an advantage as I stated in reply to your other post. If someone buyin for 25BB they have bigger chance of getting one of those "1.25BB" +EV situation.

[Jeffage]

Lee,

While you're here, has Stars ever fixed that very annoying glitch where if someone bets all-in less than that round's bet (say 48 on a $60 betting round), you can only complete the bet? This is very annoying and I know it was on the list of things that were supposed to be fixed. Obviously, in this situation (all in bet more than half the required amount), I should be allowed to raise to $108. Let me know.

Thanks,
Jeff

[NLfool]

doesn't matter. Isn't the buyin for most limit games like 5 big bets. It goes both ways, I just played with someone with bought in 5 BB had AK vs 55 flop is AK5. I feel lucky he only had 4BB then. It really doesn't matter especially on the internet, people are coming and going to tables so fast I usually don't even notice

[mmcd]

Increase the minimum buyin to 10 bbs.

[B Dids]

Seems like this might be more of an issue because 'stars default buyin is the min, instead of Party's 25BB. You end up with people buying in short because they think they're doing what they're told. I know this doesn't address the leaving issue, but that might not be an issue at all if people were promted to buy in with 25BB stacks.

[MNpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Seems like this might be more of an issue because 'stars default buyin is the min, instead of Party's 25BB. You end up with people buying in short because they think they're doing what they're told. I know this doesn't address the leaving issue, but that might not be an issue at all if people were promted to buy in with 25BB stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]
I agree the defaults should be higher.


Personally I like to see short stacks at the table. I think it gives some information.

#1) They want to go for the big win and gamble
#2) They are moving up and don't want to risk much (i.e. usually weak tight)

The very slight +EV you may gain by playing a very short stack more often is IMO quickly offset by the one time you get AA only to win the blind portion of a 15 BB pot.

[CardSharpCook]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

there is your answer. The problem is that every player at the table, before they *look* at their cards has a piece of the blinds. You sit down on a 10-20 table with 5 other people and your share of the blinds is $5. That $5 usually isn't important, but if you're playing a 5BB stack, you're basically getting 1.05:1 odds. Other players put more than 5BBs at risk every hand. Technically, 12BBs are at risk, though most hands don't get that high. Their odds are closer to 1.03:1. It isn't much of an edge, but it is an edge a casino would salivate over.

I don't have a clear grasp of this concept, so my explanation may be hard to follow or my thinking may be off.

[durrrr]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If the normal minimum buyin in a LHE game was 100BB, then some1 buying in for 25BB would not have an inherent advantage.

[/ QUOTE ]

They would have an advantage as I stated in reply to your other post. If someone buyin for 25BB they have bigger chance of getting one of those "1.25BB" +EV situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Having 1.25BB in the big blind is a very +EV situation. Having 1.25BB on the button is not as +EV for the next 8 hands (lets just assume ring table) as having 5000000BB. This is assuming that you play just as well as your opponents. When you have 5BB you are probably losing some EV as opposed to some1 sitting w/ 500000BB, because your first hand is in the BB, and chances are very high that you will either have a decent sized stack (5BB+), or be bust, by he time the big blind comes back around. Also with 25BB you cant control at what point you have 1.25BB or w/e other small amount (which would be +EV in the big blind). I'm sure if researh was done, and ou knewhow the games played etc. buying in for XBBmight be slightly more profitable than buying in for kXBB (where k is some factor of X). However this would be a ridiculously minute difference which would also take an insane amount of computing technology and DATA to even discover (which amount was right forwhich opponents, game types etc).

In your average pokerstars (or any other site w/ a similar buyin structure) LHE game, the difference between 2 exactly even players, one of whom tries to buyin for the right amounts, and another who sits w/ 5,000,000,000$ would be less than .1BB/100 IMO, and probably less than .02/.03BB/100 (i'd need to put more thought into this; those numbers are just a guess).