Is having a big stack an advantage in a capped buy-in game?

[Vince Lepore]

Is there an inherent advantage in having a much bigger stack than the buy-in in a capped buy-in NLH live game, given that all of your opponents only have a buy-in. For example suppose you have $1000 in a 200 capped buy-in, $2-5 blind game. Now suppose all of your 9 opponents each have $200. Does one have a decernible advantage by being in this position? What if you only have one opponent? If this has been discussed please direct me to the thread. Thanks in advance.

Vince

[italianstang]

The games I usually play in fall in to this exact category, a blind structure of 2/5 or 5/5 or something like that, with a capped buy in between 100-500. Inevitably, someone at the table after a few hours, whether it is a home game or at a casino, has over a thousand, sometimes more.

I believe that it really is an advantage. While I can't figure it out statistically, I think that the edge based on intimidation it gives is very high, ESPECIALLY with players new to no-limit.

A $100 dollar post-flop bet in to a pot that contains maybe $40 isn't really that absurd or out of the ordinary. However, when a newbie NL player, with $200 in front of him and only ten dollar invested in this pot, is required to call 100 bucks with his top-pair weak kicker it just isn't gonna happen, allowing you to pick up a lot of pots you would not have won at showdown. Obviously there is some reading ability in play here as you have to know who sucks at the table.

On the other hand, I don't feel at all intimidated if I am on the other side of the coin. If I lose a short buy-in with the best hand, then big deal, I can buy-in again.

[Matt Flynn]

vince,

no, unless you get an intimidation bonus.

but in most of those games there are weak players who also have > the minimum buyin, in which case you get a moderate to huge overlay.

matt

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
but in most of those games there are weak players who also have > the minimum buyin, in which case you get a moderate to huge overlay.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is similar to the point i was going to make. if you are starting to get deep usually there and some weaker players who are just about as deep (and a strong one you can avoid since the presence of the loose weak players prevents him from getting to frisky unless he has something). this is an excellent position to be in IMHO. if you get deeper and there are still weak players who are deep, it is about the best position in poker (high EV, low risk).

i rarely play a limit session longer than eight hours, but when i get into the good spot i'll play extra long in the no limit. it's never when i'm stuck (playing on stuck in a restricted buy in game is about the worse thing you can do), rather it is to push a $1000 win into a $2000 or even $3000 win (I'm still mostly playing $3 and $5 blinds with a $200 fixed buy in so these are decent wins for that game).

vince might have asked this because i saw him chop out early twice a week or two ago when he had a very decent stack and the rest of the table looked somewhat weak/loose/unskilled. i gave him the needle and i think he misunderstood my point. although being very deep against certain types of players who are short stacked can work in your favor, it is rarely as good as the more typical situation where you are fairly deep (at least 100 times the big blind) and there are terrible players who are also deep. meanwhile any tough player who takes an open seat must work his way up slowly - he won't be in your way for a while.

i think two out of three of the above paragraphs say pretty much the same thing but i'm suddenly too tired to edit but too much of a yankee (sort of akin to an anal retentive nit) to waste what i've already written. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

~ rick

[turnipmonster]

in terms of the next hand, no, it provides no advantage.

in terms of the overall game, I guess it can since you can double someone up and still have them covered, whereas if you only had 200 you couldn't rebuy to cover them.

--turnipmonster

[fsuplayer]

in terms of the overall game, I guess it can since you can double someone up and still have them covered, whereas if you only had 200 you couldn't rebuy to cover them.

when I have 3 or more buy-ins at a capped game, if I play better than most or all of the table, I will give more action in some of the small pots, so when I get into the bigger ones, they dont expect a real hand from me.

like you said turnip, if you double someone up on a slightly loose call/draw type hand, when they double up, they still expect you to make those plays against them, but you take their stack when you dont.

i def. dont go too far with this thinking, but I am more likely to make an image type play with a real big stack in a capped game.

[TomCollins]

There is one big advantage other than psychological.

If you are a better player, it is much better to have your opponent covered. But suppose you have 3k and your opponent has the max 1k buy in.

If you double him up, you STILL have him covered. If you did not, you can only win back 1k, rather than busting him still.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
when I have 3 or more buy-ins at a capped game, if I play better than most or all of the table, I will give more action in some of the small pots, so when I get into the bigger ones, they dont expect a real hand from me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good point. A big stack allows you to splash around against the smaller stacks and create a loose image valuable for the big confrontations. Also note that there will be some players who won't gamble with a medium stack (let's say twice the buy in). If you are very deep (or have them covered) you should do a lot of stealing against them.

~ Rick

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
in terms of the next hand, no, it provides no advantage.

in terms of the overall game, I guess it can since you can double someone up and still have them covered, whereas if you only had 200 you couldn't rebuy to cover them.

--turnipmonster

[/ QUOTE ]

Vince's scenario is artificial, with only one player (you) being deep. The more typical scenario I described elsewhere in this thread is common and should govern your "stay and play" or "go on home (or to another game)" decision.

That said, sometimes I am the only one playing deep (because I got off to a fast start). Against a timid table you can do a bit more stealing but otherwise I agree, it's not a big advantage.

The beauty or restricted buy in is when I'm deep and a few weak players are deep players like turnipmonster, Ulysses, Matt Flyn, and others who post here can't jump in and cover [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img].

~ Rick

[riverboatking]

i very rarely play in restricted buy in games, however it has been my experience that when i have a much deeper stack in a capped buy in game, people are less likely to bluff against you because in their eyes you can afford to look them up.

i have no idea where this thinking comes from, but many times i have seen people checkdown hands against me when i have position, but they had great opportunities for semi-bluffing.

you have no idea how many times my ace high has held up because someone refused to semi-bluff their oesd or flush draw vs. me.