Micro Buyin amounts?

I used to play the UB Micro tables getting started. I would always buyin for the table Minimum and try and play my way from .10 to 2.00. My buddy was always criticizing me for not buying in for 2.00 and playing from there.

Now I had my reasons for buying in low it was usually that I only had a couple of bucks there to begin with. And I needed practise. And with practise I came to realize that I could do well with this strategy. For some reason big stacks would often try to push me out of a hand with rags. So playing smart I could often double up and be at my 2.00 amount in just a few rounds of the table. Often I went broke, but with my low buyin I could see the hands and my mistakes. I came to realize what hands people were holding when they bet preflop.

When I would buyin for max at a table it was often a disaster. I would lose most of my stake and have to go back to my min buyin strategy.


What is your opinion of this strategy for getting started. Should one buyin for minimum or the maximum at the table.

There has been some interesting discussion over the past couple of weeks about this here... Full Stack vs. Medium Stack...?

The short answer is that if you have any expectation of winning long term, there is absolutely no good reason to buy in for less than 100bb.

Buying in short is really, really bad. Don't do it.

Full buyin is the best... Your work it out after you win a nice pot that could of been bigger if you had a bigger buyin.

I personally like to buy in with as much as I can. I know that the more money I have on the table the more I can win. The stakes I usually play at I'm not worried about some one who is amazing. I'm pretty much just worried about the occasional suck out taking more of my money then it should. By and large, I am better then a lot of the people I play against, the higher the relative stakes, the more money I can take from my opponents. Plus most all info out there is geared towards larger stack play, or short stacking, but not usually right in the middle.

Yeah .... too short is a problem. I have used this to my advantage against many players in the past. 100 BB and up sounds reasonable to me.

i started playing micros (2nl) with 50 BB, after i played a pretty good amount of hands, and had a good feel of what was happening i changed to 100BB or 150BB. i was confident in my ABC poker, i knew i would get it in good most of the time so if there is a fish with a large stack why take 50BB from him when i can take 150BB?

When you played 50bb deep, were you adjusting your stacking ranges and bet sizing? - And everything else... but those are the major changes.

The main reason I don't like the idea of buying in short even when you're learning is because it's a different game, either you have to play horrendously while you're learning or you can play it well and have to re-learn how to play once you move up to playing a full stack.

I really appreciate everyones input. Thanks for responding. I am going to adjust my play some and do some bigger buyin amounts.

they probably try to push you off with rag hands because due to the size of your stack, your range is wider and so is theirs(correct me if im wrong anyone).

There are some really profitable short stackers. I would probably still buy in 100BBs at 2nl just since you're in a learning stage, but there's no problem with experimenting with a short stack, getting a good 3-bet range, etc.

Playing short stacked for me usually means that I am going to play that very tightly. You cant play marginal hands, simply because if you lose then you have no money to win anymore.

Yall do realize you can rebuy for the minimum. I look at it as a stop loss, When playing short stacked. Instead of playing tight I actually loosen ranges. Looking to short circuit Nits and Challenge Donks. I am sure this is a Micro thing.