How much to bring to the poker table?

This part fo table strategy that I haven't seen dealt with much. How much do you bring to a table? Do you bring the max? Do you bring the minimum?
Each one has it's disadvantages and advantages on betting but I'm looking at it on table image later in the game.

When I go to a table I always check out the table stacks. This gives me some info as to who is the player to watch. But that can be a misnomer. Big stack doesn't necessarily mean good player. And vice a versa.

I usually bring in the minimum or just a little bit over. I try to give the image that I'm a noob. And sometimes I will throw away a couple of hands with donk play to reinforce that image. If I lose my original buyin then I will bring in 1/2 the max. And this is when I make my killings.

But bringing in the max has it's advantages too. You can build it to the big stack at the table with good play and be the big dog that everyone watches.

What's your prefences?

Depends on my mood. Mostly I will buy in for the max. I am confident enough in my game that I want as much money at the table as possible so I know if I hit a monster I won't run out of money to bet with.

Sometimes I will buy in for a little more than the min, pick a lucky number and bring that to the table. I have done this lately and I have had a good run but I could have made more had I brought the max. (you can lose more too but thats not the way to look at it! )

Of course the flip side is that you can take a few chances knowing you only have so much to lose on a given pot if you take the min. I know some folks who always take the min and do fine but I guess I prefer to have a bigger stack.

Final thought: If you feel you are better than the others players you should do a max buy in.

Side note: I often play a bit passive at the start as well, lets me get paid off when I have a big hand and check it.

I will almost always buy in for the maximum allowed at the table, especially if there are bigger stacks there. I am looking to maxmize potential winnings. So if I show up with just a portion of the buy in, then that is what I'm limited to winning. If the whole table is running below max, then I will consider buying in for less but still keep me in the top 2-3.

same as JD and Logan; I buy in for the max because I want to win the max. If you're thinking 'I could lose more with a bigger stack' then you aren't confident enough in yourself and should do somethin about it...

I also note when a person bought in for max or min. This IMO shows me the kind of player they are ie if someone sits at a 100NL table with 20 bucks, it means they're either playing above their normal limit, or that they're playing with scared money.

I always buy-in for the max for most of the reasons that everyone has already stated. I used to buy-in with an amount based on a risk defined figure, but that wasn't enough to let my stack fluctuate during the session and allow for big comebacks as well as big scores.

I want to get max reward when I get a nice run. Just the other day I was down about half my buy-in, but in the course of five hands I managed to doube my original buy-in. I think in any NL game you need to give yourself room for session roll fluctuation. Limit is different.

If your talking about ring games,, Doyle Brunson says its best if you have the most chips at a table,,,, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.. buck

i'd say take the max, just make sure it's to a table you can afford to be at

I absolutely am against buying in for the minimum on ANY tables, as you have no real fold equity to push other players round if your the shortest stack on the table.

Also, Im a stickler for bankroll management and firmly beleive that you should be able to lose AT LEAST 10x the max buyin without worrying too much about it, standard statistical variance dictates that even the best players will go on a dry streak regularly.

My favourite example was Daniel Negreanu, whose poker losses at FCP were nearly $3,000,000 for last year - and he essentially broke even for the year when he won the WPT circuit event!

I usually bring about the median. I'm playing now at the 1c/2c table. The min is 20c and the max is $1. I usually bring in 50c. Sometimes i bring the minimum and sit until I get a good PP and just go all-in. If I go all-in with the minimum buy-in then I might get 2 or three callers and a chance to triple up or more without risking much.

I dont want to get a good all-in hand busted with the maximum buy-in at stake but usually I also dont want to catch a good hand and not have anything to bet on it.

I always look at the table before I go in and see how much others have. I try to go to tables who have other players near the maximum buy in. The reason I do this is if others just bought in with the minimum then there is not enough action to make it worth my time. I always go in with the maximum amount so as not to have enough chips to cover a bet. But since I'm new I could be wrong lol

I buy in for the max but I'm always underfunded in the 10x the buy-in factor. I need to go on a good run from the start or I have to redeposit.

it's always good to have the most chips at the table, haha

^^^ Haha

I like to sometimes buy-in for double or abit more the minimum buy-in, so say if the min buy-in was $40, i'd do about $80-100 or something like that, but yeah, it really depends how im feeling about my game and stuff so i dont really know.

i think bringing the max is the best way to go, but shortstacking can be very profitable if u play it right. you will get some very loose calls from other players.

I'm not the world's greatest ring player but when I do play I usually buy in in with the minimum.

This allows a hit-and-run approach to be taken where you are aiming to seek an all-in call from a bigger stack preflop (unless you have a monster you don't do the calling), double up and then leave the table. It's either push or fold but played right it can be effective.

I can afford the max but as a tourney player with leaks in my cash game and no interest in grinding out 4-6bb/100 hands this is a fun way to relax and pretty straightforward. Obviously though, max buy-in is potentially more profitable in the long run if played correctly

I buy-in for 60% of the max everytime. I find that I can push people off hands but a lot more people will see a Turn against me when I am leading in the hand vs when I am deep stacked.

60% also kind of forces its own discipline in terms of hand selection early on which helps a player like me whos natural tendency is to play more hands.

I can also play more hands more aggressively pre-flop, especially AK, and and JJ which I like.

Best of all, lots of players tend to underestimate my game b/c I do not buy-in full so I get paid off more often with my monster hands.

Recommended reading: Getting Started in Hold 'em by Ed Miller. His short-stack NL strategy is very interesting, and he makes some excellent points in regards to big stack vs. small stack play.

Since I am mainly a Stud and Omaha cash player, the responses on this thread don't mean anything to me. 20BBs is about what you should buy in for at a Stud or Omaha table, however.

I always buy in for the max and I will reload if I dip too far below the max amount. I note others who do the same as they are typically better players. Short stack guys are easy to play against because if you call the raise you know they are willing to go all in. Makes it easier to push them around or to get them to call with TPTK type hands vs. overpairs and sets.

I buy in for the max and make most of my gains from busting / doubling up against the other big stacks. It's just as easy to lose small pots with a big stack, but much easier to win big pots, which is what you want to do.

Haven't really experimented with buying in for less than the max, apart from once or twice when I've tried higher limits.

One thing I do do though, is to try not to reload if I go below the max. I start playing the short stack by default to get back where I started. Psychological, doesn't make much sense when you think about it, but it usually works in making me play better.

Short stack guys are easy to play against because if you call the raise you know they are willing to go all in. Makes it easier to push them around or to get them to call with TPTK type hands vs. overpairs and sets.[/quote]

This is the one of the Meta Game attractions for me...when I sit down, people have pre-conceived ideas about the way I will play...they underestimate my play.

I would argue the opposite about going all-in with a medium stack...I don't want a big pot with just TPTK but lots of big stacks are willing to put me all in with that hand so I quite often double up in that spot whereas I never get that kind of action when I am deep.

20BB shortstack play is very different as you suggest.

Paul

on the 10c/20c ring game tables at laddies i like to sit down with the max 20$
this is in case i catch a monster and need a good stack to bet with,i to will also throw an hand and try and leave a false table image always handy if you are lucky enough to have the nuts or a big hand