Buy in Max vs Min

I have a question for the experienced players. I have been playing Many hands in the low limit tables at UB trying to see as many hands as possible to go to school so to speak. My question to you is this what are the advantages and disadvantages to buy in for the Max or the Min in Ring games with no limit in number of rebuys.

I have had good luck in the past playing Minimums. When I would buyin for max it seems like i would allways have problems. I have gotten to the point where I am looking to bank as soon as I get 3 to 4 times the min buyin and then look for a new table.

I probably should read a book sometime but have not won one anywhere yet.

Thanks
T

max because you have more BBs ldo...

think of it like this, in an mtt, play wise, would you rather have 30BBs or 100BBs...if you have mor chips you can wait for better hands before being blinded out or being forced to make a move or marginal call.....

same in cash, to put it simply

but im a wallet warrior what would I know

Well Lets say I have the amount of the Max total to play with in the above Post. Ex. 4.00 Max Min Buy .80 I would still get the same number of BB.

I Have been playing minimums to limit my Losses but the argument I have been given is that the ability to cover was what was important. Or to have the ability to maximize the profit on Premium hands.

4$ and 80cents are def not the same in BBs no matter what limit??

Buy in min or max, but use different strategies.

Min buyins work if you play tight, very tight, and aggressive. You also play very little postflop. So if you're doing better buying in minimum, stick with it, but work on max buyins as well to develop your post flop play.


Max buyins allow you max ability to get value for your big hands. Min buyins deny your opponents implied odds. Just don't go somewhere in between as you have the best of neither world. Unless the entire table has less than a full stack in which case you having a full stack doesn't mean anything.


As for books, check out your local library. Or start with the articles here.

I like nine lions response here. It depends what you want to work on. Short stack is all about preflop play top top is a solid hand and you get it in while you're miles ahead, and your opponent is a fool for chasing against you because they have zero implied odds.

Full stacks are all about post flop play, an area with many nuances that may not be something you're ready to invest in too deeply, but in my opinion a full stack strategy is the best way to make a bankroll. You'll learn the skills you'll need to win as you progress in your game, and you can maximize the crap out of value when donks stack off light to you, just remember top top is no longer a money hand.

What I've noticed with people who buy-in short is that
when they raise preflop usually (but not always) they
move all in on the flop. So they become very predictable.
If I don't have a great hand or at least good position on the guy,
he's not getting any action.
IMO buying in short is playing double or nuthin ... not poker.

Thanks for the reply all.

People tend to give you more respect when you buy in for the maximum...

I used to love the mini buy in at ub. .10 and then try to run it up to 2.00 and then cash. Now min buy is .80 so I have changed my cashing strategy to same 2.00 but can get there a lot quicker. May have to up that to 5.00 if there are few tables open. Lot more open since the merge and the bots are gone for now.

If your more comfortable losing small amounts stick to your min buy-ins,

Really the only bet your worried about is, a call you would have to make with a weaker hand , that's the only time your putting your chips at risk.
So if your playing sloppy poker, play min buy-in. If your playing solid poker play max buy-in. Reward of picking of some loose cannon with chips is higher.

max is generally better, but it depends on your comfort level imo. If you don't feel like sitting down with 100BBs and if this might affect your play, you might be better served buying in shorter.

Max is best if you want to vary your play, want to sit down in the long run study your opponents etc. , buying in for the min can work, but have to play very tight only really moving all in pre-flop and you have to be even more disciplined as to when you stand up, as there'll be much less opportunity to reclaim chips if you buy in for the min, and avoid 6 handers for obvious reasons, once youve been round the blinds a couple times your only gonna double up to your minimum amount making it very hard to profit

I like max because I want to make the absolute most on my best hands. I dont want to cut down the gains because I didnt sit down with enough money.

If you are playing afraid to lose poker... it doesnt matter what size stack you sit down with.

The key to winning in gambling is when you win - win big, right? Then it would make more sense with the max buy-in. Of course you have more chips at risk, but with proper BRM and if you get your money in good, you can make more money and make it faster.

Of course the other key to gambling is when you lose - lose small. So if you're not confident you'll get it in with the best when you do get it in, maybe a min buy-in would be +EV.

This is the key reason to me not playing to many ring or cash games.
Even if you say buy the maximum,there is no guarantee that some hasnt been sitting there with a huge run and a huge stack in front of them.
The same goes for the minimum buy in allowed,you are almost guaranted that most of the table will have more chips than you in front of them.
I have always liked mtts and small sngs just for the simple fact that everyone starts at the same level of play.
In a live limit cash or ring game I will usually play 6/12 and buy in for 200.00.that is usually my limit to buy in for,but there always seems like there is at least one person there with 600.00 or more in front of them.
Who happens to be calling all the way down on there gut shot.lol
Still usually works out for me.

You are also limiting your wins. Buying in for the minimum is -EV. When I see a player is only buying in for the min., I'm marking my notes on him immediately. Either playing with scared money, doesn't know how to play deepstack play or looking to get it in on the preflop lottery.

If it's working for ya... great. Personally I'd invest in the book... doesn't take too many times of getting stacked off to pay for a decent book. Hey.. they're even free to read from the library. Some excellent posts in this forum as well. Pretty sure you'll find one (or more) that actually cover the topic you've just inquired about here.

max. buy-in & when it drops below the max., immediately re-load to max again. I want to get paid off on my good hands... I want to play as deepstacked as possible.

I personally like buying in with the minimum buy in. THats because if you loose, you only lost the minimum amount you could, but if you double up and win or triple up you have the choise of staying there too win more, or go too another table withe either the minimum amount or your winnings so you always stay postive amount, or break even instead of loosing more. Slow and steady wins the race its not about how much you win in one day, it matters at the end of the day did you win 300? but just before you log off you ended up loosign 450, so your down. if you continitly win in small amounts you are always up, and its free money, no need too be in a rush to get it out let it build

X your post is closer to the way I play. I often find my min buyin equal or greater than a max buy in short order. I am glad everyone say buy in for max and mark their ledgers about me when i buy in shortstack. They often play their same way towards me after i have built up that stack. And i have no qualms about rebuying in a session. but at the end of the session i can still bet it all and only lose that min buyin i started with. Its not money to me till i get it in my hand. but then what do i know im just a dumb ol redneck..

haha

I`ve always tried to buy-in for the max live, like everyone has said here, you want max profit on your big hands. Online I`ll just buy-in low and try to wait for premium hands, unless you get a table where good post-flop play is going on. Seems its alot harder to find online. You know short stack guys are gonna be using the all-in alot live, so you see people slow play them more. I could sit at a table in AC for 3 or 4 hours and watch at least a dozen min. buy-in guys come n go, all leaving their minimum buy in to someone at the table. Just seems smarter to buy in at the max and grind it out, especially live.

I feel like you're being presumptuous. Short stack doesn't automatically equal scared money, inability to play, or a lotto player. It equals a short stack, for whatever reasons. You can't know the other person's BR management strategy. If min's what they can comfortably afford to buy-in with, then they clearly aren't playing with scared money. Furthermore, it doesn't take a whole lot to start with a short stack and leave with more than the max(although most will leave with 3x-4x what they sat with). That just leaves pre-flop lottery, well, they've no choice at times, considering that there are narrow minded individuals who simply assume that's what they're after and then proceed to commit them subtly or flat-out all-in the short stack.

It's like that old saying, when you assume you make an ass out of u and me. You can really step in it by making auto-notes based on anything other than a player's play.

you definitly gotta buy in what ur confortable with.
If you are better playing short stack strategy than playing big stack strategy, make the min.

If you play SSS you will have some ventages. You won't take too hard decitions, and also u will not loose too much if you loose.
The good thing with BSS is that if you have no problem by playing it, you will have more winnings than SSS.

Good luck

I can not imagine a single pro stating they prefer to buyin to a table with less then the max. Who concerns you the most at a table - the opponents with the min stacks or the opponents with the big stacks? It had better be the opponents with the bigger stacks because they are the one's that can bust you on a single bad play or bad beat. However if you have the same or nearly the same stack then they are just as concerned about you and that is to your advantage. Sometimes stack size can be an effective weapon in and of itself because of its intimidation factor so you always want it backing up your plays so your opponents have to factor it in and don't bully you. It also allows you to spend some money in spots just to get information on someone that you can use later to win back more money. I would much rather sit down at a table full of shorter stacks then the opposite. IOW do not go to a gun fight armed only with a knife! Just my two cents.

Can I just make one tiny suggestion that won't put the OP in cardiac arrest?

Why not have the best of both worlds. If min's all you can afford or the only buy-in you're comfortable with, well, I gotta quote Gus Hansen and yo momma, and say if it's not broke don't fix it. But there's no rule that says you can't adapt it for the purposes of improving your game. From time to time, when you can't stop getting great hands, stay awhile longer than the 3x-4x the buyin stage. Stay and adapt until you're sitting with the max, and if you're really brave, stay until you have even more, but caveat emptor. It's dumb to do that if you haven't the right amount of loot to where u can afford to lose the minimum while learning. Still, it has it's strong suits. It's a chance to play deep stacked for a minimum buy-in. You'll pretty much be easing yourself into deep stack play, and from there you'll get enough experience to gain the confidence to buy in for the max + play well with the max.

You won't see a single pro saying they prefer to buy in for the min, this is true, but watch HSP sometimes, they're not all buying in for the max. Furthermore, Barry Greenstein bought in for the minimum for at least one session because he said that a short stack makes the big stacks play loose. Funny that was the same session where Daniel was losing heaps from his full buy ins. Oh yeah, that was NLHE of course, but still, there are good reasons to buy in for the min, and any pro who can't play short stacked, well, I'd say their game's kinda incomplete. The opposite's true too of course, but I still don't see how this is a black and white situation. It seems to be choose one, the other, or both. Easy peasy.

You would be mistaken then. Ed Miller and Rolf Slotboom have both written extensively about the strategy of short-stacking in ring games.

Seems to me if you can win short stack and big stack then you have the best of both worlds. Right now I am building a bank roll. I usually time my sessions based on point accumulations in the poker rooms i play. I have found for my level of play that i win more st than bs. Off course im still playing micros what do i really know yet.

u should always buy in for the max because in ring games you want to play hands like low suited connectors for cheap. this way if you flop big you can bust some one with a big hand. plus then doubling up will get you more money. as far as you doing better when min buying... it is either in your head our maybe your playing different and just not noticing.

So really you're asking for future reference? I'd say keep doing what you're doing while it's working and you're building your roll. After you have enough to where you can sit with max or a buy in comparable to the rest of the table while taking maybe 2%-5% of your BR, then worry about bringing the max.

I think about this stuff a lot, and at FTP where the least you can take to a table is $2 for 5c/10c for NL and PL games, I'm figuring that to even short stack "safely", I need at least $200 total to cover downswings + days when I'm not playing my best. I'd much prefer to take just 1%-3% to a table than 5%, and yet I see people saying they want to take 10%. The way I figure it, taking 10% of your br to the table at a time only affords you 9 losing sessions before you're going broke, cuz once you move up it kinda bruises your pride a bit to drop in levels or buy in ammount.

I feel like if you only have $50 or less, you have to decide for yourself what you'd prefer. Personally I'd rather get the most play for my buck, and short stacking + cheap sng's are the way to go in that regard. Even $100 doesn't go very far once you consider things like rake and tournament fees, and that's not even counting losing sessions.

I believe the max buy-in for 5c/10c is $10, so until $10 is around 3% of my br, I'll gladly take my lumps as a short stack. Furthermore I've yet to see a max buy-in for limit hold em. Even at the tiniest table it's in the thousands of dollars, imho it's nuts to take thousands to such a little table, unless you just want to show off.

Having said all that, I'm sick of spinning my wheels, so the next time I have even a little loot(Chris Ferguson Challenge), I'm breaking Fergie's rules, and just taking a chance, for the fun of it.

From what I've seen, Dweezel is right here for min buy-ins. It can be pretty profitable if you have 3 or 4 mins at the table and they go all-in each hand - often with crap. But it can be frustrating also because they sometimes hit their goal - to suck out regardless of what they start with.

My thoughts on the original post -- I typically don't buy in with min, but I don't buy in max either. If the max is $10, I'll usually buy in with $4 (double the min) to give me some play flexibility but also to limit the potential damage -- I'm a low-stakes player until I hit my big win!! ;-)
My biggest problem is thinking the big stacks are buying a pot - of course sometimes that's true, but more often than not when I make the hard call with 2nd pair and a big kicker, the big-bet-big-stack has me beat.

Well that's depend how much money you have in your bankroll, let's said example the min is 20$ and max is 200$ then you only have 250$, that way I wouldn't expect to go with the max, instead go with half of it. :P