Ring game buyins

I havn't seen a thread regarding this so I thought I may aswell start one. I was wondering how much you like to buyin to ring games; Max, Min or somewhere in between. Personally I like to buyin at around 75% of the max buyin, but I would love to hear the opinions of others.

Acceptable Ring buy ins:

- 20-50bb's (aka short)
- 100bb's (normal stacked)
- 200bb's (deep)

Buying in for anything else just puts you in horrible situations. And I've been playing nothing but deep stacked poker for the past couple of months, and I'm not sure I like it all that much. All the rules for 3-bet pots & not folding sets kinda go out the window since there's so much money behind. Totally screws with your game.

Theoretically if you had a skill edge on your opponents, you'd want to buy in as deep as possible.

c9h13no3 said:

Acceptable Ring buy ins:

- 20-50bb's (aka short)
- 100bb's (normal stacked)
- 200bb's (deep)

Buying in for anything else just puts you in horrible situations. And I've been playing nothing but deep stacked poker for the past couple of months, and I'm not sure I like it all that much. All the rules for 3-bet pots & not folding sets kinda go out the window since there's so much money behind. Totally screws with your game.

Theoretically if you had a skill edge on your opponents, you'd want to buy in as deep as possible.

Click to expand...

This.
Playing with 75BB is just all kinds of bad giving u the worst of both worlds imo.

Cheers for the advice guys, like so many i'm constantly learning.

If you're just starting out, I'd recommend buying in for 100BB's. You'll be able to play straight-forward TAG poker and will help make your decisions easy while learning.

In both online and live play, I routinely buy-in for 50 BB's. If I'm playing No Limit, I'd rather not risk a larger portion of my bankroll on one hand. If I am playing Limit and I get down to 25 BB's or less, that means the cards are running so bad that I should probably take a break for a while. Playing with 50 BB's allows me to play a short stacked strategy, playing super tight and waiting for good cards. My experience is that super tight play is by far the most profitable strategy for me...so far.

i buy in for the max no matter what

that way i can get the most return if i do end up stacking someone

the only way that i can see to do anything diff, is if you are trying to shortstack and hit and run, since you are out of your br (i cant stand doing this, esp since the regs will pick you off over and over)

max buyin for me - if i cant afford it i would drop a level where i could

Ranger390 said:

In both online and live play, I routinely buy-in for 50 BB's.

Click to expand...

Buy buying in short you make it much easier to play against you and make your own decisions much harder. You will have larger stacks putting you AI with a larger range of hands since they know they can limit their bankroll risk to whatever your stack is. You will not have the stack size needed to control the pot when you need to and effectively limits your actions to preflop & flop.

Jillychemung said:

Buy buying in short you make it much easier to play against you and make your own decisions much harder. You will have larger stacks putting you AI with a larger range of hands since they know they can limit their bankroll risk to whatever your stack is. You will not have the stack size needed to control the pot when you need to and effectively limits your actions to preflop & flop.

Click to expand...

Check Harrington on Cash Games. He argues that buying in short and playing tight is a very viable strategy. And, when in a multi-way pot, a potential advantage.

If you don't feel comfortable buying in for the max then you shouldn't be playing whatever the limit is. I always thought of the short stacks having a losing strategy buying in for 20 bbs I just don't get how that can be profitable, and I don't think it's very good poker that "shove" strategy. You'll make the most money buying in for the max and taking full stacks from your opponents.

Buy in for a 100bb, as soon as good players see a non full stack, they assume fishiness. I guess could be a good thing but having 100bb or max buy in is the most +ev play

Jillychemung said:

Buy buying in short you make it much easier to play against you and make your own decisions much harder. You will have larger stacks putting you AI with a larger range of hands since they know they can limit their bankroll risk to whatever your stack is. You will not have the stack size needed to control the pot when you need to and effectively limits your actions to preflop & flop.

Click to expand...

this
(and upstate what)

Ranger390 said:

Check Harrington on Cash Games. He argues that buying in short and playing tight is a very viable strategy. And, when in a multi-way pot, a potential advantage.

Click to expand...

i agree, until the regs figure you out, where online they will set mine against you and break your little stack over and over

drewbabez said:

If you don't feel comfortable buying in for the max then you shouldn't be playing whatever the limit is. I always thought of the short stacks having a losing strategy buying in for 20 bbs I just don't get how that can be profitable, and I don't think it's very good poker that "shove" strategy. You'll make the most money buying in for the max and taking full stacks from your opponents.

Click to expand...

i agree, buying in for 20bbs, calling 5 or 6 of them off pf, then shoving if you hit any part of the flop cant mean much, when the only callers you get are hands that beat you

When I have the br I always start out deep stacked because I am an optimist and assume that will maximize my return when I get the nuts and am up against an equal or greater stack. Many times it works out that way but I have also found many times it does not and I get busted either from a bad beat or my own lapse in discipline or correct analysis. I listened to Barry Greenstein state on a poker radio show that he sees great value in starting with the short stack buyin unless he knows he is a much better player then everyone else at the table.