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

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.

philthy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

LuckyChippy said:

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.

Click to expand...

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..

ramdeebam said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

ramdeebam said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

ramdeebam said:

Thats crazy though WVHollbilly.
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.

Click to expand...

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.

ramdeebam said:

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?

Click to expand...

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.

ramdeebam said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

ramdeebam said:

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

Click to expand...

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

ramdeebam said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

ramdeebam said:

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

Click to expand...

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.



@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.