why buy-in for less than max online?

[fourgapper]

I see a lot of buy-ins for less than the maximum at Party's $25 NL/PL tables. For example, someone will sit down with $10 or $5. What's this about? Shouldn't one keep the stack at the max, especially if there are larger stacks out there? Is there some subtle strategy in buying in for less than max?

4gapper

[Zag]

Actually, the best situation is to have a stack that is bigger than the stacks of all the players who are worse than you are, but not as big as the player who are better than you are. In this one choice, most of these players have struck exactly the right level.

[greenage]

When I started playing NL (a few weeks ago [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]) it was at UB’s $50 tables. For about the first week I bought for $25 to limit my loss. Why I didn’t just play in a smaller game is a different question. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Once I’d gotten my feet damp I started taking the max buyin for all the games I play.

So I suspect loss limit is on the minds of at least some of these players. Weird thing is I see some buyin for $10, lose it, rebuy for $10, lose it, repeat and rinse.

For some it may be a ploy. If the right circumstances present, they can just push and have the chance to win a decent pot while limiting their risk.

I can’t imagine a good player finding a strategy in this, but hopefully some of them will respond to your post as well.

[SomeName]

if you want to gamble play a short stack, if you want to play play a big one.

[NoTalent]

That is correct. Most of these people who buy in with a short stack don't know what they are doing. When I make a move with my whole stack, it usually is correct. I have the 1st or 2nd nuts and hope to double up against a bigger stack. You can also use your larger stack to bully some of the smaller stacks (but don't bully idiots--they will call with bottom pair...)

[heatscan]

Most people who buy-in for short stacks are gamblers. They're hoping to hit a hand with a heads-up edge - in most cases pocket pairs - go all-in, and get called by a bigger stack who won't respect the small all-in.

Of course, this isn't much of a strategy because with 9 other players, one of them is eventually going to call you with a big hand. And even when you get called by A-high card, you're still only a small favorite.

[Lunamondo]

For a limit player new to big bet poker it makes sense to buy less; like $17.50 at 25 NL, though depending of the type of the game and what and how much people bet and raise there.

When the bigger mistakes happen they in this case rate to happen past the flop, while this kind of smaller stack makes it possible, when correctly done, to put more or a lot of money in on early streets when ahead, and it's nice to be all-in when someone sucks out, or would like to make a bluff one can't call, while one might get people to call more easily when they see what you got left.

I think people who play lots of hands before the flop often complain about the smaller stacks as they might not get good enough implied odds for their looser play. The other reason why one might not like the smaller stacks is that it looks like one makes less money with superior skills vs. smaller stacks. One might hate to see tiny stacks on one's table; it looks like money right out of our pockets.

Maybe there should be a complete law against too small stacks, and in my opinion against too big stacks also. 12.5 the lowest and 50 the highest what one can have active on the table. It's just perhaps hard to demand that when the other has no more money left, while I am not that sure it hurts either as it's bad poker to play with a too small stack, like you might not mind in a multiway pot that the person who makes his set on the flop is already all in, always paying too much (perhaps relative to you) before the flop to try to draw out.

One thing the bigger stacks can do is to raise often and more perhaps, for it to be if not a mistake but less profitable for the smaller stacks to call those raises with pocket pairs for example. In these games it costs some money to the smaller stacks (might cost to the raiser also but that's not the issue here) that hate to see that happening.

[george w of poker]

it makes no sense for a winning player to have less than the max in these capped buy in games. you want to be able to maximize your big hands and shouldn't be worried about minimizing losses by keeping a smaller stack.

if you want to get your feet wet without losing a lot find a smaller game but don't hurt yourself even more by not being able to get the max from your hands.