minimum or maximum buy-ins? Pros & cons

Hi.

Title explains it all really..

Basically whats the best approach? Minimum or Maximum buy-ins?

I understand you can get rewarded bigger obviously the higher the amount of money you take in if you go all-in but can obviously be turned around into a big loss.

I'd like your opinions on this please.

depends on playstyle
if tag low buyin
if lag high buyin

Is that the general concept/theory? Or just your opinion?

I guess I'm quite TAG and don't like to gamble to much on a hand unless I'm 100% so the lower buy-ins do indeed suit me as I feel an All-in wouldn't cripple my BR.
thanks for reply anyway.

That's his opinion and not a very sound one imo.

I play a standard TAG game and buy-in full and top off even if I drop a SB. The better you play compared to your opponents the deeper you generally want to be. If the best player at the table has 200bb and everyone else only has 50bb, buying in for 50bb makes sense because otherwise any money you put in the pot over 50bb is against the best player at the table. Position also matters (as always), in that if the deep stack is on your right you'll generally want to have them covered, if on your left you'll want less or to find a better seat.

its my concept
i play mostly tag with minimum buyin
i almost always leave table if i trippled up my buyin unless i got a table full of fish
also maximum rebuy once on a table and leave that after quad dubbleup.
play mostly 5-10 and 10-25 tables at the moment and making a decent profit on them
almost never more as 3 ring games and 2 mtt/sng at the same time .

works for me :P

First it isn't a "bankroll" if losing 1 buy-in cripples your "BR". Search bankroll management on this site or anywhere else and you will see you need a minimum of 20 buy-ins to play comfortably at any level. Even proven long-term winning players can lose 10 buy-ins in a row.

I'm going to assume you're talking about buying in to a table with the minimum or maximum, e.g, 20/40BB-100BB. Always buy-in for the maximum 100BB's at the table, but the maximum should only be at most 5% of your total bankroll.

I think a min-buy in is acceptable if you're BR is small to start off with. Full Tilt has shallow table cash-games where max buy-in is 40 BBs.

Other than that, buy-in full at all times. The way I see it, if you buy-in small you're protecting losses but in exchange you're giving up profits. So, it depends on what is most important for you.

Lets say you have AA and you shove it all in and get one caller. If you've only bought in for 40 BBs, you can only win 80 BBs. If you lose, you're losing 40 BBs. Now, if you had 100 BBs, then you'd either lose 100 BBs or you'd win 200 BBs. While the lose of a 100 BBs maybe greater, you're earning and extra 120 BBs whenever you win when you buy-in full. Or another way to look at it is: you're losing 120 BBs.

As long as you have the BR for it, you're always better buying in full.

A lot of people think like that, small BR = buy-in short, but it's really wrong. Playing a SS is VERY high variance and as such you still need a full BI players BR if not more. I mean I suppose if your "BR" is so short that it's less than 100bbs at 2nl or whatever you could split it between 2 tables but beyond that it makes no sense.

Ok, sorry i should of phrased it better. I don't mean cripple my BR, I'd lose maybe 1-5% of my bankroll depending on which limits i was playing but it still hurts me be it 1% of 5%!

I'v never lost more than 1 Buy-in at the most..Godknows how consistent winning players handle lossing 10 buy-ins in a row and still win overall. I mean, if i lost 10 buy-ins id kind of guess my game wasnt at a cash table..

Going of peoples theory of having 20 buy-ins to play at a certain stakes but to then lose 50% of your roll kinda means they would have to drop stakes? Don't see how they can win consistently if they have been known to drop 10 buy-ins.

Thanks for all your replies, i think i'm going to just have a buy-in of the 100 blinds and see how it goes..

The difference between good players and great players is the ability to deal with these losses well. When I say 20 buy-ins, that's a minimum and yes if you lost 10 in a row you would have to move down. 20 Buy-ins is only really enough for 25nl and lower and some people will tell you it's still not enough. To properly grind at 50nl and above 50 buy-ins is the minumum. Everyone is different though, different tolerances to variance. If you can move up and down and continue to play well on downswings you could get by with 20 buy-ins. If the money affects you mentally even if it's 5% of your roll, then you should play at limits where it's 1-2% of your roll. It's all personal.

Don't worry, if you play enough, losing a buy-in won't affect you at all eventually. Just keep putting in the hands and learning.

I have about 450K hands at FR. I've had 4 stretches where I dropped more than 10 BIs, with the largest being 15. When I include 6-max/HU the number goes up to 7 stretches over 10 BIs. It's pretty standard and that is why 20 BIs just isn't enough for anything beyond an easily replaceable micro stakes BR. Oh yeah and over the entire sample I'm a 2BB/100 winner.

Thats crazy though WVHollbilly.

I mean...no offense to you and maybe I'm wrong, so if i am please explain to me.

I'm a noob so please forgive but if i was to lose 10-15 BUY-IN I'd would certainly doubt my poker skills.

People say on average a good player makes around 1 or 2 BB per hour. So if you was to lose 15 buy-ins you're most definetly a lossing player. Not only would you have to drop in stakes but how the hell would you recover your losses even if you stuck at the same level stakes?? It's the most of your bankroll gone...

I'd seriously have to review myself if i lost 2 buy-ins or stop playing cash games, i don't understand how it can be classed as common.

If using the standard "20" buyins, then you pritty much have los 75% of your roll which means recovering it seems a very very long job. I thought most decent/good players shoulden't be lossing 10% of their roll?

It is and always will be completely standard what WV just said. I know its hard to believe and maybe it will be a significant in your poker learning, but variance is massive. More massive than most of us can truly understand. If you play long enough, you WILL lose 10 buy-ins in a row, no matter how good you are. For WV, he plays at 50nl where games are much tougher than say 5nl or 10nl. I wouldn't expect him to lose 10 buy-ins at 10nl close to ever, but at 50nl and above, it's going to happen sometimes.

With you, you need to get over your fear of losing. If you can't then you shouldn't play. Really. If you can't tolerate a 5 buy-in loss while knowing you played well then this game isn't for you.

As for your last post yes. 20 buy-ins is an absolute minimum and only for the micro stakes 2/5/10nl maybe 25nl but even then some people wont play them with out much more. If you are seriously playing anything above 25nl you will need more to avoid having to move down when a downswing comes. That would require more like a 40 or 50 buy-in roll.

This is all of course, if you KNOW you're a winning player.

A couple of weeks ago I lost 3 buyins in under a minute while play 4 tables. This sort of thing is totally standard.

The way to deal with it is to ensure your bankroll is large enough. If you are uneasy about losing 2 buy-ins, you need to play lower limits.

No offense taken but you really haven't played this game very long if you think dropping 2 BIs is anything. I've had 50nl session where I've lost $1/hand due to variance and a sprinkling of tilt.

If you'll notice I said that 20 BIs is the absolute minimum and even then it's only good for a micro stakes roll that can be easily replaced. I'm a recreational player currently at 100nl and I don't feel comfortable with less than 50 BIs for a given level. With 50 BIs my guidelines call for moving down when I get to 40BIs for a level (so dropping 10 BIs before dropping back down). I have done this several times in the past.

Most professional players will tell you that they want a 100 BIs before they consider themselves rolled for a level. I have seen graphs of very good players who have had 40+ BI downswings. It happens and a lot more often than most of us want to admit.

Edit: Meant to address the bolded part. The key part of your sentence is "on average". On Average I win at 2BB/100 hands over my entire sample (more at 25 and 50, less at 100nl) even with all those 10+ BI downswings included. What on average doesn't mean is that EVERY time I play I win or even that I'll win over several sessions. It just doesn't work that way. Poker is NOT a steady income. I might lose at 4BB/100 for 2000 hands (-8 BIs) and then win at 5BB/100 for 2000 hands (+10 BIs). For a net of 2BB/100 and +2 BIs even with a 8BI downswing in there.

Thanks for replies. I understand where you're coming from now..

I have a question though. So it is normal for you to lose say 10-15 buy-ins in a row. However, at any limits I imagine this being the same at micros as for the highest levels known to man. If for example I was or anyone was to lose 15 buy-ins of $3.00x15 at a any given time this would be a massive $45.00. At micro limits this is one HELL of a loss, no? So the same applies to any level you are rolled for and losing 15buy-ins. This is for one session this happening. How on earth would you recuperate these losses? An average "big" win at micros is $2.00 and these don't really come very often. So that one session where i just lost $45.00 I'd have to prey I was going to win 15 BUY-INS just to break even from that disastrous session. Even if playing TAG poker this surely would take a hell of a time to just get back to break even measures no?

So micro's being the easier of levels to beat as everyone says. Even the best players would struggle to get those buy-ins back without months of hardwork poker. Thus you're going to have to be very lucky to win them back. At the highest level this seems quite impossible.

^^ it just depends on the sample size and how much volume you can put in. For example, my friend who plays SNG's on Tilt tells me he's been on a 4-month downswing. This sounds awful, but really he's only played ~100 tournaments, which is a really insignificant amount. This weekend, he played one session of four tables and erased his debt by half.

I know SNG's and ring are not the same, but most people would find that 1) it is easier for a downswing to "last longer" when you don't play a ton of volume, and 2) a downswing over a small sample can be very quickly erased by just a couple of good sessions.

As a general rule, I suggest maximum buy in. When you hit your set against pocket aces or kings you want as much money in the pot as possible.

Here you go. One of my biggest up and down swings over a short period. This was my April (lol <10K hands) and all hands occurred at 50nl (some FR some 6-max). So the downswing part is 18 BIs. Good times.

swongs.jpg (http://www.cardschat.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=33052&d=1286758201)

That's sick. So my question still stands, have/how you recovered from the massive downswing?

I assume he has recovered as he has stated several times that he's a winner at that game over a big sample. Also you'll notice it was all winnings that constituted the downswing meaning his bankroll wouldn't have been depleted.

Also post the EV WV, you obv just ran good for the mountain and was just breaking even over that period

Well, you see from the graph it only took him ~6k hands to make ~20bi's. That's a very small sample, it doesn't take much time to play that many hands tbh. So you can hit a stretch of luck and very easily make up a large deficit.

Graph since May 1st (man my volume is so lol). Mix of 50nl and 100nl so I posted this one in BBs (so up 36+ BIs). Note that May started out the way April ended.

try.jpg (http://www.cardschat.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=33057&d=1286763459)

@LuckyChippy - I was actually 4BIs BETTER than AIEV for the month of April, so things could/should have been a lot worse.

A massive downswing can be compensated by an upswing. It is dependent on being properly bankrolled at the level you are playing. It is not so much the amount of money lost but the way you will play if your BR gets low. Scared poker is no way to play. There is nothing wrong with depositing when you lose, especially if your stats show that you are playing at the correct level. I agree also with a full buyin. I see the short stacks get hot and then they go up against a full stack and it is gone in a second.

Ok I'm still quite newish so didn't quite understand it. Got ya now though.

Impressive Billy thanks for the explanations. I just like to know as much as I can so thank you for your time. I hope to get some sort of steady poker as yourself one day. Maybe you wish to be my personal mentor?

Yeah. Just the first graph showing the big downswing, I just didn't see then how he actually recovered and how long it took for the recovery that was all.

Thanks for all your comments too.

I have been experiancing a roller coaster for a long time. I just remain positive metally as I know that by approching the game correctly I will overcome the down swings. Example: I play live cash games where the minimun buy in is at least $300.00. These are $2.00/$5.00 no-limit cash games. With a full table you have got at least $3,000 at the table and an overall average of up to 10k at the table. When the game starts I usually buy-in for around $600.00 as to have everyone at the table covered from the start of the game. Just last week I and two losing sessions that cost me a total of $1000.00. Then that friday I won a live tourney that paid me $1200.00 and I won $500.00 in the cash game after. My point is that you can recover if your mind set is correct and your game tactics are sound.

An extremely hard concept to understand, actually almost impossible to understand for new poker players is that variance happens and not to try to adjust your playing style to deal with bad beats. You lose AA to 42o and you start limping with Aces and then start to wonder why lose even more, you get set stacked with AK when you make TPTK and your opponent flopped a set so you stop playing AK. It is a painful lesson that needs to be seared into a poker player's brain that it is good that you lose with AA vs 42o otherwise you would never make money off the loose bad players who chose to play these cards. You need to stop thinking of a 'winning session' or a 'losing session'. Your session is as long as you have a bankroll and you are playing. Sometimes you go card dead, sometimes you get coolered and sometimes you run really hot. You need to be willing to strap in and grind. Until you lose your AA to some hideous donkey who decided to play J2 and flopped a full house and not go on tilt you will not succeed at poker. This is why Bankroll management is so key. First, you need to play at levels where the money does not matter at all. If you constantly are buying in with your gas & grocery money you are not playing properly. Second you must be able to lose several buy-ins and still have plenty of money in your roll. Third, do not constantly look at your account balance. If you are winning there is no need to look. If you lose 3 buy-ins you can double check it but don't start playing differently. Otherwise maybe take a peek once a week or so.

This advice is from someone who is just emerging from a prolonged blood bath, who finally realized that I could not blame others for my losses.

Full buy-ins are a must, if you "NEED" to shortstack you aren't ready for that level. The odd time I may buy-in for $40 at a 50NL table, but that's more cause i know I tilting and just want to shove alot of hands quick.

Well if you do drop quite a few buy-ins then you might have leaks in your game. So it is not always true that you don't have to change your game.

Always buy-in full, with auto top-up as WV suggests. I wish I could learn to do this sooner as sometimes right after I lost a big pot leaving me with 10bbs or less, Full Tilt decides to have mercy and deal me AA or KK on the very next hand. That's a whole lot of lost value right there!

Concur with all here who have mentioned full buy in. With out it (IMO) you limit/handicap yourself to playable hands (only playing those top 10 hands or so). Therefore this handicaps your other hands you would normally play and others see that and will cause you to get no action. You been sitting there all night waiting for the AA or AK and when you get it you raise.....Others take note and will fold.

You can choose to have this done if you click under Options, I believe, and look for Ring Buy-In Preferences.

Id buy in for what you feel comfortably playing, if you cant afford to lose x amount of money, than buy in short or move down levels. From a strategic point of view, you should want to have as many chips on the table as you can have. But if the table is super deep and you can buy in low, than its also strategic to do so. I play $1/2 live, sometimes i buy in for $100 sometime $500, it depends how many chips are on the table, how my opp rates, etc. If everyone has $1000, i always buy $100, as a double up will be easy, sometimes youll double up without a call($20 raise and 4 calls, u push) If everyone has 200 and under, except this lady whos got lucky on the river three times with money in on the turn, and has $700, im buying $500(70% of opp stack) Both examples are real, i have doubled up without a call preflop, and i did buy in and double tru the lady who reraised my turn bet with two pair vs my turned strait.(side note the $500, was a $200 buy in, a $100 add on, $100 add on, $100 add on, the lady did look at me weird, as i did this after each of her drawouts, but didnt keep her from getting it in with me on the turn) turn action was bet 20, she rereaised 100, i reraised 350 more, she did wait about 30 seconds before calling, for anyone who cares.

I normally buy in for full.