How much to buy in for in NLHE?

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is wrong. Having a short stack does not mean you can't bluff effectively. If it did, though, it would mean that your opponents would be unable to bluff you. So, once again, this is not an argument against buying in short.

I bluff and semibluff frequently when I have a short stack. I don't follow the simple short stack strategies described by Ed Miller and by me, which involve playing tightly and hoping to get paid off by unobservant players. While that is profitable, it is even better to pick up many pots no one really wants.

[ QUOTE ]
All things considered, if you want to make $$ at NL, you need to buy in for the max.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's just a common misconception. People are prejudiced against having a short stack, but properly handled, a short stack can be very profitable. See the past discussions of this where many respected posters in the high stakes NL forum mentioned buying in short, including El Diablo/Ulysses, KaneKungFu123, Tommy Angelo, and Limon.

[tonypaladino]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

[pmdvert18]

Is quads vs. a straight flush a common occurence for you???

Might one to go with the flush vs. set comparison...LOL

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.