Full Stack vs. Medium Stack...?

Hello CC!

I've just got back from the pub, had a few drinks, and I've finally managed to win the tournament they have down there. It's a £5 buy-in, winner-takes-all NLHE freeze-out and tonight there were 33 people in, managed to win it and come away with £100! So this gives me bankroll enough to start playing 10nl - I'd previously been playing 5nl without even being fully rolled for it, but I worked my way up to 50 dollars and now I'm rolled for that level. If I add the £100 in ($150), I'm rolled for 10nl.

However, when I've been playing 5nl, due to my bankroll, I've been putting $3.50 or $4.00 on each table as opposed to the full $5.00. I've come to feel comfortable with this, since I can lose a little and then double up and go for another double-up, or if I get a bad beat it doesn't seem so bad losing $3.50 as opposed to $5.00. Also, at 5nl there seems to be a fair amount of short stacks around, mostly held by the fish that most of my profit will be taken from, so it seems the times I'd be benefitting from having a big stack - when I'm going against what is more likely to be a decent player - I'm usually going to be in a more uncomfortable spot, and stand to lose more money.

I do, however, realise that the book states that one should be taking a full stack into each cash game. I can see the logic in this - you can win more money. I guess I could just do with a full explanation of the advantages of a full stack, get the reasoning drilled into my head or whatever.

So yeah, all words of advice in this area will be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.

The bigger your stack the better your play needs to be.

If you go broke with TP a lot then maybe a shorter stack is fine, but 100bb is still pretty medium in size so the play should not be that different.

If you make fewer mistakes than your opponent then it is better for you to have a full stack so you can capitalize on the mistakes that they make.

Also $200 is pretty low for playing 10nl, maybe play 5nl until you get up to 250 or 300.

Your edge in poker is tiny. A couple of bb per 100 hands, it doesn't take much to make that go negative.

If you drop from a 100bb stack to say a 70bb stack, you are accepting some new disadvantages:
Your skill edge is reduced (shorter stacks make play more simple, for your opponents too).
You pay more rake relative to your winnings. Since rake is capped, it doesn't matter if you're going all in for 70bb or 100bb you're still paying the same rake but if you baught in short your winnings are cut by 30%!

Keep in mind also that buying in short does not reduce your variance. It actually increases it because if you're playing intelligently you're going to get in a lot more coinflips (since you have to stack off lighter and generally play shove or fold a lot post-flop). Reduced skill edge + more all ins = variance.

If someone with a solid winrate at 100bb buys in for 70bb, I wouldn't be surprised if their winrate goes negative.

Buy in for 100bb, always.

Alright, got it, thanks. But this has prompted a further question for me. Say I take $10 to the table and get down to about $7, do I add another $3 to get the full stack again, or just leave it? I'm guessing it depends on how fishy/profitable the table in question is, but I'd like to hear more thoughts.

Thanks.

Always top off.
Some have it set to automatically do it, however I find I can keep better track if I do it myself especially if playing more than one table.

Get your mind set right, STOP thinking about what you may lose and START thinking about what you will win, and yes top off like PooffyFooffy said, letting it get down to $7 is not good.

If you are better than the other players at the table, more money on the table is always better. You want every player covered, in theory, because that's more money you can take from them if they misplay a hand.

If you aren't better than the other players at the table, don't play at that table.

Other than advanced SS techniques, there's never a good reason to be at less than a full buy-in at a table.

This is not to do with the ques but isn't 15 buy ins a little small. I would aim
of a min of about 20 buy ins.

Even though all the reasons stated above are good and valid, the op stated that he feels more comfortable buying in for a medium stack. The more comfortable you are, the better you are going to play, so while mathematically a disadvantage, his mental advantage in comfort may make up the difference.

The short answer is: learn to play deep, get comfortable playing deep.

To be honest, I'm more comfortable with fewer effective BB too, because the shorter you are the more correct and incorrect plays can be. Kind of the difference between dealing with facts (short stacked play) and instincts/experiance (deep stacked).
However, even though most exceptionally bad players will buy in for less than 100bb and therefore a lot of your winnings will come from having a medium effective stack, you have to have them all covered.

Besides, playing a medium stack requires a lot of adjustments from play with a full stack. Since almost all poker strategy is written with full stacks in mind, you will learn how to play a 100bb stack well before you learn how to play a 99-21bb stack well.

yes a full stack has a much better chance of winning more money then a low or medium stack, this is because if your all in you will double up to a higher amount then a medium or low stack, and it also allows you to play more poker thena smaller stack would. however, i saying this, i can promise you that if you do not know how to play bigstack poker you will just be buying in with more money to throw it away to your opponents

Agree with all the arguments for big stacks, they said it better than I could. I'd just like to add something that hasn't been said : Having a big stack is a big fear factor for your opponents.

If they are nits or very tight they won't stack off their 200-300 BB stack with less than the nuts or close to it, which you can use to your advantage obviously...

Recently I have heard a couple of good arguments for not playing with a full stack when you are still learning the ropes.

When you are playing with a 100bb stack this will allow for a standard raise pf, a pot sized bet on the flop, a pot sized bet on the turn and a pot sized bet on the river. Now when you are just starting out (playing micro stakes) you will be getting yourself into some fairly tricky situations by the time the river comes along and this is where you are probably making some of your biggest mistakes. While you probably know how to play pre flop correctly and have a fair idea of flop play, its the turn and river where the biggest bets go in and its the turn and river that you will know the least about until you become more experienced.

If you play with say a 60 - 70bb stack you will have the opportunity to make the pre flop raise, the flop bet and the decide whether you want to get it all in or not from there. If you make the mistake on the turn or river you will now be losing far less than you would having 100bb.

Now that doesn't mean you can never buy in for a full stack, if there is someone super fishy at the table or someone sitting to your right who you think you have a significant edge over make sure you have enough in there to cover his stack as you will be wanting to get maximum value from him.

if you feel uncomfortable losing 5$ then you shove move down to where you feel comfortable going AI when you think you are doing the right thing.

Agree.

If you're playing with $3.50 at 5NL, why not just move to playing with $2 at 2NL - if you're an average player or better you'll find it very easy to double up and soon you'll be sitting with more than you were at 5NL