How much to buy in for in NLHE?

I'm trying to decide the best amount to buy in for in NLHE. I mostly play 1/2 and 2/5, where a full buy-in would be $200 and $500 respectively. Many books suggest that you should buy in for the maximum so that if you get a chance to break a big stack at the table you won't be short-stacked against him. This seems like good advice. However, much of the time that all my chips go in I've only got about a 10% advantage, which I don't like because I'm risking so much money on such a small edge. Sure, its great when you've got the nuts against the second nuts, but much of the time I don't have that much of a lead. Lately I've been buying in for the max at tight table where it is more likely I will get into a big hand vs. big hand scenario. At loose table I've been buying in for half of a full buy in to minimize my losses on hands with small edges. Barry Greenstein suggests that you usually buy in for the minimum in his book (if I'm remembering correctly). How do you guys and gals decide on your buy in for a particular game? Is my thinking totally wrong on this? Bear in mind that I'm not a pro, but I do keep a separate bankroll that I like to build upon.

I prefer to buy-in max and play on levels, where my bankroll is able to sustain it (General consensus is that a bankroll of 20xbuy-in is a minimum, so in your situation a bankroll of 4000-10000$ would be minimum)

But pro's and con's of buying in at half max short in order to minimize variance instead of playing a max buy-in at a lower level ?? (Say buying in with 100 at 2/4$ instead of buying in 100 at 1/2$)

Intuatively I say your are giving up profit on your big draws, but since you do not payoff is draw misses, but might get paid off if draw hit. I have a feeling that the profit you give up on is smaller than the potential loss.


Anyone else ???

I would say buy-in for the max if you are better than your competion and have an adequate bankroll to play the game. By not buying in for max, your sacrificing ev if you have an advantage in the game. So, the question your really asking yourself is do you want to sacrifice expected value for less variance and my answer is no.

[timmer]

3% to 5% of your total bankroll

if you are willing to go all in or call all in on any hand that isnt the nuts.

timmer

[TomBrooks]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say buy-in for the max if you are better than your competion and have an adequate bankroll to play the game.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would it follow that if one were inexperienced at NL and wanted to try it out, they should always buy in at the minimum until they were confident in their game?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
Many books suggest that you should buy in for the maximum so that if you get a chance to break a big stack at the table you won't be short-stacked against him.

[/ QUOTE ]
This sounds plausible, but it ignores how frequently you are the one with the second best hand. When you are involved in a straightflush versus quads confrontation, half of the time you have the quads, and are thankful you didn't lose more money. Most of those books assume you'll always be the one with the straightflush.

Your stack size changes the nature of the game. It's possible that you could be a winner with a short stack, a loser with a medium stack, and a winner with a very big stack.

Since I can't take money off the table, I usually buy in for the minimum. If I feel it would be more profitable to have more money, I add it.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

Would it follow that if one were inexperienced at NL and wanted to try it out, they should always buy in at the minimum until they were confident in their game?

[/ QUOTE ]
No. NL with medium or deep stacks is very different from NL with short stacks. If you buy in for the minimum, you are less likely to face the gut-wrenching decisions on later streets. In fact, with 10 BB, you can push or fold preflop (except for the flops you see for free from the BB).

On the other hand, winning limit players are likely to be winning NL players immediately if they buy in short, and will probably lose in all but the softest games if they buy in for 100 BB without making huge adjustments in their game.

There are my thoughts on the subject:

If you can't buy-in for the max you should be playing at a lower limit.

If you are constantly thinking "I don't want to lose all my chips" then you will get pounded by players that don't have that limitation.

Playing short-stacked also hampers you from betting to protect your hand. Suppose preflop raising builds the pot and you hit your hand but there are draws on board. If you go all-in with your short stack (especially if you can't even make a pot sized bet) its easier to get called by the drawing hands because they know you can't make them pay more on the Turn.

Plus good players know that anyone who doesn't buy in for the max is typically weak.

SP

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]
If you go all-in with your short stack (especially if you can't even make a pot sized bet) its easier to get called by the drawing hands because they know you can't make them pay more on the Turn.

[/ QUOTE ]
As has been discussed here many times before, this is symmetric. When you have a short stack and flop a draw, your opponents can't protect their hands against you, since they can't make you pay more on the turn.

What is not symmetric is that players who call a short stack's push or set a short stack in may get knocked out before showdown. For example, a short stack pushed preflop, someone called, and I reraised with QQ. The caller folded, and I was heads up against the short stack who had A9 and was a 2:1 underdog. Because of the dead money from the caller, he was getting paid more than 2:1, so he wasn't unhappy to have pushed. In another hand, I pushed from the BB with A9 and was called by two players, one of whom bluffed into a dry sidepot with ten-high so that I won unimproved.

[ QUOTE ]

Plus good players know that anyone who doesn't buy in for the max is typically weak.


[/ QUOTE ]
Many people who buy in short are terrible, but buying in short does not force you to play badly. You can often outplay people substantially because they don't respect you and don't fear a short stack. That allows you to value bet effectively against some players while bluffing and semibluffing effectively against others.

Typical players do not have much experience playing against good players with short stacks, and hemmorhage equity against them.

You need to remember OP's issue with buying in for the max. He doesn't feel comfortable risking a full buy-in with 10% edge. That tells me he should be playing at a lower limit.

With a short stack you are removing one of the most important weapons in NLHE: the bluff. You can only fire one shell at the pot. If that doesn't work, you can only win by showing down the best hand.

All things considered, if you want to make $$ at NL, you need to buy in for the max. With on-line playing, this shouldn't be an issue because virtually every limit is spread.

SP