Live $1/2 No Limit Holdem Buy In Amount?

Slider23

Slider23

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Total posts
76
Chips
0
I would like to know your thoughts on what is the correct amount for my starting buy in. The minium buy is $100 and the Max is $200. My bank roll is 3K. My starting buy in is typically $100. If I have to rebuy, it could be $100 or $200 depending on game. Should my orginal buy in be $200 to start the game?
 
A

AlexTheOwl

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Total posts
860
Chips
0
There is no easy answer to this.

If you have $100 and and a fish at your table has $200, then you can only take $100 of the bad player's money at a time.

If you have $100 and most of the players are better than you, then the most you can lose at one time is $100.

Shorter stacks make hands like top pair easier to play. The more money there is in a pot, the more likely it is that one or more players has at least two pair. People are generally willing to bet more with better hands.

But when you have a set, or better, you will wish you had a bigger stack so that you could win more chips.

The best players want to have the biggest stack they can get, because they are smart enough not to lose everything with the second-best hand, and they want to be able to win the maximum when they find a good spot.

But most players would be better off with a shorter stack.
 
R

Rational Madman

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Total posts
2,478
Chips
0
If you cannot comfortably risk the maximum buy-in, it follows that the cash game is beyond your bankroll, period/fullstop.

Do not play in that cash game if what I just said rings a bell.
 
A

AlexTheOwl

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Total posts
860
Chips
0
If you cannot comfortably risk the maximum buy-in, it follows that the cash game is beyond your bankroll, period/fullstop.

Do not play in that cash game if what I just said rings a bell.

For Bankroll Management (BRM), bankroll is measured in buy-ins, not in maximum buy-ins.

Some games have unlimited buy-ins. But no one has unlimited money, so no one should play those games?

Aside from BRM, there are winning players who choose to buy in short for strategic reasons. Not the best players in the world, but winning players.
 
Slider23

Slider23

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 26, 2017
Total posts
76
Chips
0
My minium buy in amount comes from a long term habit when I did not have much money as I always bought in for the minium amount. I currently play 10 to 12 hours a week. I started four months ago with $1600 bankroll and now it is at 3K. I have played some $1-3 with button straddle, but the size of the game made me a little uncomfortable as it played much larger than the $1-2. I am very comfortable playing the $1-2.
 
A

AlexTheOwl

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Total posts
860
Chips
0
You are a winning player in the game, and you are not attempting a short stack strategy. These are reasons to buy in for $200.

But at $200 you have only 15 buy-ins. Many experts recommend 20 buy-ins as a safe bankroll for cash games.

You do have 20 buy-ins right now at $150
 
R

Rational Madman

Legend
Platinum Level
Joined
Jan 11, 2017
Total posts
2,478
Chips
0
For Bankroll Management (BRM), bankroll is measured in buy-ins, not in maximum buy-ins.

Some games have unlimited buy-ins. But no one has unlimited money, so no one should play those games?

Aside from BRM, there are winning players who choose to buy in short for strategic reasons. Not the best players in the world, but winning players.
Correct, no one should play them as you can never play 'around' the other bigstacks one you're bigstacked as you always risk losing more than you gained in just one hand no matter how far up you go.
 
Stuey

Stuey

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Sep 11, 2017
Total posts
76
Chips
0
You should always buy in the maximum. If that is 100bb or $200 then you should have the max and learn to play with 100bb. The 50bb buy in is for birds because you are restricted to play a short stack strategy and win another from villain the equivalent of your stack.

If you want to build your bankroll fast you got to play a short stack strategy with a large effective stack of 100bb or more so that you can take another villain's deep stack all at once in a big scoop.

In live, LLSNL games, you win money by doubling up or busting people. Anything else makes you fall victim to the rake.

You have a chance to play a big pot approximate three times per hour. You flop a set, have the nut flush draw, hit your straight... etc. Most of these times a big pot does not pan out. It takes two hands to get paid in a big pot. Or you just miss. Once every other hour, you play a big pot. You are ahead every time. You know you don't always win, but you get your money in good. Most of these you win. On rare occasion, you lose. When you go card dead, when you don’t find money making situations, when the draws go in the muck, when AK misses 2 out of 3 times and your c-bet doesn’t work, your stack and profits slowly melt away until you hit your average hourly rate. That’s the normal way the game goes. There’s nothing magic anyone can do to change those things.

You can play TAG and this is the usual result, three chances an hour and one big pot every other hour. You can play LAG and increase the chances of both, but your swings will be a lot bigger and based upon a lot of observation and experience the results will be the same.

That's the theory.
 
A

AlexTheOwl

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 22, 2017
Total posts
860
Chips
0
If you cannot comfortably risk the maximum buy-in, it follows that the cash game is beyond your bankroll, period/fullstop.

Do not play in that cash game if what I just said rings a bell.

you can never play 'around' the other bigstacks one you're bigstacked as you always risk losing more than you gained in just one hand no matter how far up you go.

I don't understand. The first quote sounds like you are advocating buying in for the biggest possible stack. The second quote sounds like you are advocating not playing bigstacked.
 
edc1

edc1

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 5, 2016
Total posts
524
Chips
0
i play a lot of live 1/2 nlhe,i always buy-in for max amount when I play-you could put youyrself in a position to lose some money by not max buy-in,you wont lose it per say but you cant win with money not on table,i had a guy betting into me 3rd hand I was dealt I flopped a boat and he just kept betting,becuase I sat down with 200 bucks ,I was able to take him for a lil less than 200,if I woulda sat with 100 I'm only hurting my chances to win more
 
F

forfiter47

Enthusiast
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 9, 2015
Total posts
43
Chips
0
If I would cover everyone having 200$ and I claim that I have edge over these guys, I go ahead and buy in for 200$. It's all about how you feel, the huger buy-in the more you can win basically.
 
B

bber45

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Sep 10, 2017
Total posts
20
Chips
0
Well in all honesty, you need a 6k bankroll for 1/2 NLHE. Granted you're at 3k, going to have to play a little tighter so yo cant go broke.

Regardless, you need to buy in Max Value around 95% of the time. This is coming from Johnathan Little's new book in "Mastering Small Stakes". Reason being, so you can play deep stack and splash around. Also, when you double up you get full buy in.
 
Organize a Home Poker Game Live Dealer Holdem - Texas Holdem Poker Rules
Top