Playing 60-75BB buy-ins in Full Ring NL

J

JMcCabe

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Total posts
226
Chips
0
Hey guys,

One of the main reasons I joined Cardschat was to break down some of the habits I've developed playing poker semi-professionally, in order to elevate my game to the next level.

I make most of my money playing 6max SNGs, rebuy MTTs, and NL200/400 Full Ring NL Cash Games.

For cash games, I've found the most effective strategy to be buying in for 60-75BBs instead of 100BB because:

- reg 100BB opponents underestimate my abilities, because I'm not buying in for a full stack.

- regs stack off lighter for 60BB, than they will for 100BB

- it's easier to manipulate my stack size to a pot-sized shoving size on the flop or turn, based on earlier street action

- I can bluff more effectively using floats, light 3bets and light 4bets, because of the implied threat that I'm pot committed

- I can play NL200 and NL400 effectively on a much smaller bankroll

- I earn more rakeback by playing the higher limits, than I would if I played lower limits with 100BB buy-ins.

So, what do you think. Are these actually good reasons to play with 60-75BB buy-ins, or should I adapt the standard, "if you're not playing 100BBs your a fish" line?
 
WVHillbilly

WVHillbilly

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
22,973
Chips
0
Hey guys,

One of the main reasons I joined Cardschat was to break down some of the habits I've developed playing poker semi-professionally, in order to elevate my game to the next level.

I make most of my money playing 6max SNGs, rebuy MTTs, and NL200/400 Full Ring NL Cash Games.

For cash games, I've found the most effective strategy to be buying in for 60-75BBs instead of 100BB because:

- reg 100BB opponents underestimate my abilities, because I'm not buying in for a full stack.

- regs stack off lighter for 60BB, than they will for 100BB

- it's easier to manipulate my stack size to a pot-sized shoving size on the flop or turn, based on earlier street action

- I can bluff more effectively using floats, light 3bets and light 4bets, because of the implied threat that I'm pot committed

- I can play NL200 and NL400 effectively on a much smaller bankroll

- I earn more rakeback by playing the higher limits, than I would if I played lower limits with 100BB buy-ins.

So, what do you think. Are these actually good reasons to play with 60-75BB buy-ins, or should I adapt the standard, "if you're not playing 100BBs your a fish" line?

I think most of your points are very valid except the bolded one. I'd imagine that you'll likely experience greater variance with a 60bb stack much the same way a 20bb short stacker does. I'd want my BRM requirements to be the same or greater than if I brought in for 100bb. Do you have any rules about staying at the table if you say double up?
 
cjatud2012

cjatud2012

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Total posts
3,904
Chips
0
Keep in mind you're losing a lot of value by not buying in full. I.e. if you hit a set with 77 on an A72 board and you're against a player who's willing to stack his AQ there, you're forfeiting 40bb's of value.
 
B

baudib1

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Total posts
6,635
Chips
0
I know it's frowned upon around here but I actually think shortstacking can be an effective strategy at micros when you're just learning the game, especially if you're converting from being a donkament player.

I find it hard to believe you can beat NL200 or NL400 playing 60 BB stacks. NL200+ is an unbelievably tough game; many many of the regulars in these games played much higher before the U.S. ban on Internet gambling. Someone playing NL10 might call off your 3-bet shove after they open A9o but you're not going to get good regs at higher limits to stack off light for 60 BBs.
 
atlantafalcons0

atlantafalcons0

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Total posts
3,713
Awards
1
Chips
4
Keep in mind you're losing a lot of value by not buying in full. I.e. if you hit a set with 77 on an A72 board and you're against a player who's willing to stack his AQ there, you're forfeiting 40bb's of value.

Yea, and if he rivers his backdoor flush draw you save 40bb's of value....

lol

:canabis:
 
cjatud2012

cjatud2012

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 12, 2009
Total posts
3,904
Chips
0
Yea, and if he rivers his backdoor flush draw you save 40bb's of value....

lol

:canabis:

yup, the whole 4% of the time that happens, you're right. thanks...

(I guess I shouldn't be too snarky, I don't think you're being serious, at least I hope not lol, but still it's pretty much irrelevant :p)
 
WVHillbilly

WVHillbilly

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
22,973
Chips
0
I know it's frowned upon around here but I actually think shortstacking can be an effective strategy at micros when you're just learning the game, especially if you're converting from being a donkament player.

I find it hard to believe you can beat NL200 or NL400 playing 60 BB stacks. NL200+ is an unbelievably tough game; many many of the regulars in these games played much higher before the U.S. ban on Internet gambling. Someone playing NL10 might call off your 3-bet shove after they open A9o but you're not going to get good regs at higher limits to stack off light for 60 BBs.

There are a handful of regs in those games who BI for 60-70bbs and do quite well with it. Not sure it's for everyone but it can certainly be a winning strategy.
 
J

JMcCabe

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Total posts
226
Chips
0
I'm from canada, but have lived in Asia for the past 7 years. As such, I can play on non-US friendly sites, which I've found to be much softer than FT, PS, etc.

Keep in mind you're losing a lot of value by not buying in full. I.e. if you hit a set with 77 on an A72 board

You lose value against the fish who stacks off with AQ or AK on that board for 100BBs, but how much value do you gain against a reg who would never stack off for 100BBs on that board, but figures it's worth the call for 60BBs.

I find it hard to believe you can beat NL200 or NL400 playing 60 BB stacks.

Been playing those stakes since 2005 and have always beaten the game with a decent winrate using this strategy. I only 4 table at the most though, which limits my abilities to go pro I think.

Looking for some other reasons why this strategy is inferior to 100BB strategies though, as it seems to be generally frowned upon.
 
B

baudib1

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Total posts
6,635
Chips
0
ok, i don't understand. you're talking about doubling up with 60 BBs off regs who aren't folding TPTK. this seems to imply you're setmining? how can your profitably set mine on 60 BBs?
 
WVHillbilly

WVHillbilly

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
22,973
Chips
0
ok, i don't understand. you're talking about doubling up with 60 BBs off regs who aren't folding TPTK. this seems to imply you're setmining? how can your profitably set mine on 60 BBs?

60bb would be about the min for set mining profitably actually. If you call a 3x open with 60bbs you still have 19x the amount of the call for your implied odds.
 
B

baudib1

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Dec 2, 2008
Total posts
6,635
Chips
0
ok i was thinking most pots with AK vs. a pp is going to be 3-bet, wasn't thinking of calling the pfr. still seems like the thinnest of margins, i could see it working at 75 bbs.

wouldn't this strat work better in 6-max games?
 
WVHillbilly

WVHillbilly

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 7, 2007
Total posts
22,973
Chips
0
ok i was thinking most pots with AK vs. a pp is going to be 3-bet, wasn't thinking of calling the pfr. still seems like the thinnest of margins, i could see it working at 75 bbs.

wouldn't this strat work better in 6-max games?

Set mining in 3bet pots with a 100bb stack is no good either, so he's not really missing out on anything there.

As for 6-max vs FR, not sure if one would have an advantage over the other but I would actually think just the opposite. I would think 6-max players are more willing to stack 100bbs than FR players so you'd likely lose the chance for those 40bbs more often with the same holdings. FR nits might be persuaded to stack 60bbs in a lot of spots where they would give up to a turn bet from a full stacked opponent.
 
atlantafalcons0

atlantafalcons0

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Mar 4, 2010
Total posts
3,713
Awards
1
Chips
4
yup, the whole 4% of the time that happens, you're right. thanks...

(I guess I shouldn't be too snarky, I don't think you're being serious, at least I hope not lol, but still it's pretty much irrelevant :p)

No, not serious at all.

Always buy in full...
 
psy0nyd3

psy0nyd3

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Total posts
929
Awards
1
Chips
31
When you buy in short you still lose the same amount in small loss pots. Which are the majority of your losses, so when you are missing that 40BB value from double ups it seems the variance would be much higher.
 
J

JMcCabe

Rock Star
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Total posts
226
Chips
0
Actually I win more money without showdown using this strategy than I do at showdown.

Not sure if that is indicative of my style, or the fact that I'm able to win more small pots because my opponents become afraid I'm pot committed more easily due to my stack size, give me credit for a hand more often or are less likely to bluff me.

I think most of your points are very valid except the bolded one. I'd imagine that you'll likely experience greater variance with a 60bb stack much the same way a 20bb short stacker does. I'd want my BRM requirements to be the same or greater than if I brought in for 100bb. Do you have any rules about staying at the table if you say double up?

I generally put a win cap of $400-500/session while 4 tabling and will usually leave the table when I hit 150BB. Not as bad as a 20BB ratholer (they piss me off too), but I'm sure most regs see me as a recreational noob at first because of my buy-in size. My general strategy was 75BB in NL200 and 60BB in NL400, though I generally have a higher winrate at NL400.
 
No Brainer

No Brainer

Losing keeps me sane
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 27, 2009
Total posts
1,853
Chips
0
If you believe you have an edge over your opponents buy in for the full 100bbs or you are losing value against people you can beat. If you think your opponents are better than you buy in for less, this way you will be making less mistakes post flop for them to capatilize on, and when you do make them you will lose less.

Basically buying in for less than a full stack will make everything post flop a lot easier, as you have said you are comitted either on the flop or turn so you have no mistakes to make.

With 100bbs you have enough for a standard raise, a pot sized bet on the flop, turn and river and it is on the turn and river where most mistakes are made and the most money is being put into the pot.
 
Pascal-lf

Pascal-lf

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Feb 26, 2010
Total posts
3,161
Awards
1
Chips
1
I used to agree with stubzy11, until a few days ago when a friend told me his winrate has shot through the roof since he moved from 100BB to 250BB deep.

He made an interesting point that everyone plays with 100BB stacks so everyone is very comfortable - I think mixing it up and giving yourself an edge may be +EV in some circumstances :)
 
F

fx20736

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Aug 18, 2010
Total posts
2,728
Chips
0
Set mining in 3bet pots with a 100bb stack is no good either, so he's not really missing out on anything there.

As for 6-max vs FR, not sure if one would have an advantage over the other but I would actually think just the opposite. I would think 6-max players are more willing to stack 100bbs than FR players so you'd likely lose the chance for those 40bbs more often with the same holdings. FR nits might be persuaded to stack 60bbs in a lot of spots where they would give up to a turn bet from a full stacked opponent.


Guilty as charged! Well, I used to stack off against shorties with medium pp's and AJs+ but after you've been burned several hundred times you eventually realize its' not good to play with fire.
 
K

kevinchaapel

Rising Star
Bronze Level
Joined
Nov 18, 2010
Total posts
1
Chips
0


If I double my bankroll in a session I'll quit on my blind to help avoid risking too high a percentage of my bankroll in any one hand. it's easier to manipulate my stack size to a pot-sized shoving size on the flop or turn, based on earlier street action.
 
Stu_Ungar

Stu_Ungar

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
May 14, 2008
Total posts
6,236
Chips
0
I would say that playing FR with under 100bb is one of the most -EV things possible.

The reason being that FR ranges are tighter so when players stack off hand strength is more important.

What that means is that you have to fold more in margional spots as players are playing very tight in many post flop situations.

Most people are not adjusting to the fact that you have under 100bb so when faced with an all in decision.. you arent really limiting losses by starting with 65bb because if you are in a game full of nits and someone wants to stack off.. your TPTK is worthless regardless of your stacksize.

The reason it becomes so -ev is that when you do have a big hand.. you cant recap the losses to incured from all of the folds.
 
BelgoSuisse

BelgoSuisse

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Total posts
9,218
Chips
0
Interesting post, OP. Obviously you're gaining some edge by buying in somewhat shorter than the rest of the table and playing 2 streets poker instead of 3, but on the other hand 60bb is still a lot more fun to play than real shortstacking.

What kind of vpip/pfr/3bet do you run?

I think most of your points are very valid except the bolded one. I'd imagine that you'll likely experience greater variance with a 60bb stack much the same way a 20bb short stacker does. I'd want my BRM requirements to be the same or greater than if I brought in for 100bb. Do you have any rules about staying at the table if you say double up?

Meh, this is not entirely false, but not entirely true either. I'd need a much larger bankroll to play 1000bb than I would to play 20bb deep, isn't that obvious? Probably not 50 times bigger, though, but still. No way I'll do the math here, but i wouldn't be surprised if you could get a similar risk of ruin playing 60bb deep with 80% of the bankroll of someone playing 100bb deep. So you'd need more in terms of 60bb buy-ins, but less in terms of dollars or 100bb buy-ins.
 
Last edited:
BelgoSuisse

BelgoSuisse

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Total posts
9,218
Chips
0
I would say that playing FR with under 100bb is one of the most -EV things possible.

Nonsense.

Well, if you're Phil Ivey, you'd obviously prefer to play as deep as possible all the time. For any other player, you're never sure that you are the best player at the table, so you always have to make a trade off between the stack size you'd like to have when playing pots against the fishes, and the stack size you'd like to have when playing pots against the other regs, some of which might be smarter than you. That, and the effect of position.

I have no trouble whatsoever accepting OP's assumption that the best trade-off for him is 75bb at 200nl and 60bb at 400nl. That's entirely reasonable.

Ideally, we should always decide on the appropriate stack size when sitting down at a table. Typically it would either be the same size of the fish's stack, or the same size as the first player on your right. Going for 100bb all the time like most regs do is convenient, but i very much doubt that it's optimal EV-wise.

The reason being that FR ranges are tighter

I've just read a HH where AQ bakraises from MP2 and plays for 200bb stacks preflop at 400nl FR, so I'm not sure what you are talking about, really.
 
BelgoSuisse

BelgoSuisse

Legend
Silver Level
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Total posts
9,218
Chips
0
Actually this motivates me. I might decide buy in for 70bb when I move back up to 200nl rush FR next week.
 
I

imwatcher

Visionary
Silver Level
Joined
Oct 4, 2010
Total posts
596
Chips
0
Nonsense.

Well, if you're Phil Ivey, you'd obviously prefer to play as deep as possible all the time. For any other player, you're never sure that you are the best player at the table, so you always have to make a trade off between the stack size you'd like to have when playing pots against the fishes, and the stack size you'd like to have when playing pots against the other regs, some of which might be smarter than you. That, and the effect of position.

I have no trouble whatsoever accepting OP's assumption that the best trade-off for him is 75bb at 200nl and 60bb at 400nl. That's entirely reasonable.

Ideally, we should always decide on the appropriate stack size when sitting down at a table. Typically it would either be the same size of the fish's stack, or the same size as the first player on your right. Going for 100bb all the time like most regs do is convenient, but i very much doubt that it's optimal EV-wise.



I've just read a HH where AQ bakraises from MP2 and plays for 200bb stacks preflop at 400nl FR, so I'm not sure what you are talking about, really.

I'm not exactly sure JMcabes point is about him finding the balance between better players and fish, but rather making the players (worse, better or the same regs) make many more mistakes against him. Presumably this stack sizing will make them treat him more like a fish which means they will be trying to iscolate and possibly get it in slightly more marginally than verse a 100 bb regular.
 
Top