Small buyin at NL table

Playing SNGs has gotten real boring so for the last week or so I have been playing the $25 NL tables. Been doing OK but I have a question:

Why do folks buyin at $5 and reload constantly. Yes, I realize it limits your loss on any given hand to $5 - but it also limits your wins. I really don't understand this but it seems to be a popular strategy where I play. Any insights are welcome...

There isnt some long thought indepth math answer to this that has been debated for ages ......theyre idiots.

Im not sure why people do that. I always buyin for atleast 50 bb, you just cant play right with 15 to 20 bb.

IrishDave said:

Playing SNGs has gotten real boring so for the last week or so I have been playing the $25 NL tables. Been doing OK but I have a question:

Why do folks buyin at $5 and reload constantly. Yes, I realize it limits your loss on any given hand to $5 - but it also limits your wins. I really don't understand this but it seems to be a popular strategy where I play. Any insights are welcome...

Click to expand...

If you notice, these people simply aren't that good at poker and they know it. My theory is that they have low confidence so they buy in for the lowest amount. Also, they may like the feeling of going "all in", even though the amount is low.

I know as a fact that there are some pros that support short buy-in strategy as being profitable (Ed Miller?). I don't think they mean buying in at 20% though ($5 in a $25max). Mostly, what I am sure about, is that these players do it because they have low confidence as pointed out by Mr Sticker.

Why it seems so crazy to me is the total vulnerability of a shortstack. In a tournament they are gobbled up quickly by tall stacks that can afford to call them with trash and hit the flop.

In a cash game where it's usually tighter, if a shortstack enters a raised pot they might as well go all-in because pot-odds and EV will almost allways be right. If the shortstack don't go all-in then one of the other players will put them all-in just because they can afford it.

They can be isolated easily too, if I've got a good stack in a cash game I'll push a short stack with mediocre and drawing hands I wouldn't normally do with competitive stacks. Go ahead call, I can afford the hit I'll get it back after a bit and they can rebuy minimum again so I can have more if I win.

I could see doing something like this for fun occasionally. Being sharkbait for fun, waiting for A/A, K/K or Q/Q and shoving all-in looking to double. But even then you're shortstacked and multiple callers put those hands at risk.

It's crazy but to each thier own.

YEah i see the same at the lower limits i play. people frequently buy in for the minimum, and i (like MRDAMAN said ) love to call or put these guys all in with flush draws and oesd because i can take the hit. They are as Mr Sticker said generally not very good players and will have to frequently reload.

i cant see the logic in it myself.
They cant really make a good preflop raise, cause if they do they are almost comitted to playing out the hand as any continuation bet is for most of their chips anyway. They dont scare anyone as they cant make a significant dent in anyone who buys in for the maximums stack so they lessen their fold equity.

But i suppose these guys are in for a quick double up and get out. More often than not though you can easily stack them and they end up reloading and reloading.
^^^^^MR DA Man "to each their own"

well sure lots of people buy in for the min buy in. Some people think there good enough to turn it into a lot, But me ill usually buy in for the max buy in or atleast close to the max

I went from my 100$ deposit to 800$ in a month by joining with minimum buyins at 100Nl tables

Theres a lot of other advantages to it. Its not about limiting your losses.

alan1983 said:

I went from my 100$ deposit to 800$ in a month by joining with minimum buyins at 100Nl tables

Theres a lot of other advantages to it. Its not about limiting your losses.

Click to expand...

How small of a buy-in Alan? $20 on $100max (20%)? I know there are advantages to it but how small of a buyin are we talking? 20% of the buyin seems too much short to me, but I could be wrong.

i started with 20 cause only had 100 but then moved to 20-30-40 tops.

alan1983 said:

i started with 20 cause only had 100 but then moved to 20-30-40 tops.

Click to expand...

Ok, that sounds better. There's, of course, a big difference between 20 and 40. Anyway its true there are advantages and if you read in depth Ed Miller's articles on the subject, it can be profitable. In general though, I don't think most of the short buy-in guys on 25max do it for strategy, I think its mostly because they are scared, +tired of playing lower limits, and until they gain confidence they'll do this for a good while. It works for them because they limit their losses.

Perhaps not on 25max and maybe not even 50max.

But id say 100+ youll find many good players (not that im one of them) who play shortstacked.

Theres a very good reason for it imo and its one that others in this thread have mentioned unintentionally

ok

it is terrible to buy in any less then the max you can in a NL game, in a limit game you just need enough to play a hand all the way through and have enough for a capped pot all the way through.


People do buy in short because they are playing on scared money and don't want to lose what they have in their bankroll. but again this is terrible play.


you are minimizing you loses but also not maximizing your wins, I re buy to full after every single blind because I want the max every single time. You lose a ton of money from not buying in full! If you cant afford or are scared to buy in full then drop down levels...bottom line!!!!

ok

alan1983 said:

I went from my 100$ deposit to 800$ in a month by joining with minimum buyins at 100Nl tables

Theres a lot of other advantages to it. Its not about limiting your losses.

Click to expand...

so you went from 100 to 800 and could of gone from $100 to maybe 2k if you bought in full? depends how short you bought in for I think its $20 for $100 NL so lets do some math.

you buy in for $20 and hit a monster flop along with someone else and get paid off big time. Now I know why you buy in short its because you get more action because it is very small amount for them to call. But for sake of this argument lets say you both hit monster flops like you got AA and he has KK and you both flop sets. All money is going in middle and you make $20.

now if you are full stacked you make $100 so you lose yes lose $80.

lets say you do this over and over for 4 hours rebuying in new tables for minimum and this happens lets say 2 times a hour. So you make $40 a hour buying in short and getting paid off for a total 4 hour profit of $160 when the total should be by buying in full $800 so you lose here $640. I think you see where this is going.

Now this is a extreme example and is not likely you are going to have monster vs. monster and I know the benifits that you think buying in short gives you but the positives of buying in full way outweigh them.

I think people put a minimum uyin into a cash game the same way they would put their last 2 dollars on a wheel spin, or a craps point. The mind set is, double yer meager amount quickly, then go on a rush, and make a pilr. That's the mindset, the reality is usually quite different.

I buy in short stacked to be honest. I'm developing my game and cannot play the smaller stakes. I have made a steady profit ($120 this weekend).

I believe i would have made a larger profit as i have missed out on making more money due to being unable to put enough into the pot when i have a good hand. I also have no room to push other short stacks off hands becuase they are usually pot committed so i have had to adapt my strategy when i buy in short stacked to allow my self room to bluff.

I have been playing for a year and a half and only started reading and studying poker since the turn of the year and have been making money every week (online and home games). I have no problems with home games becuase i am more focused in those situations then i am online.

Admittedly i lack the confidence to play with more money against players i feel can get lucky and take my money. Saying that i would never like to be the chip leader at a table because no one can potentially 'double me up' when i do go all in. I feel your stack should be in the middle or upper quarter and never be chip leader.

True stormswa, you do miss out on some good hands.

But also remember that you dont gain as much in monster vs monster but also dont lose as much.

And you got it right for the hands in between.

You get paid off everytime!

Someone said they like 2 put shortstacks allin with any kind of draw or mediocre hand!!! Thats what i count on!

If you have a gutshot and theres 6$ in the pot and someone bets 6, youre likely to fold.

When that someone only has 14$ left, a lot of people go ahead and put him all-in with their gutshots!

Sure ill miss out on a monster, but ill get paid off with any decent hand.

And half the time by the time a monster hits, youd have built a semi-decent stack on the table

95% of the time it boils down to this.

mischman said:

There isnt some long thought indepth math answer to this that has been debated for ages ......theyre idiots.

Click to expand...

If you're a winning player at a certain level, there's no reason not to max-buy and reload if you get a little short because by not having a full stack, your EV in most cases suffers. If you're a losing player at a given level, you shouldn't be playing it at all, obviously.

At $25NL level it probably is either idiots or cowards, but at higher levels it's an established strategy - you are going to get more action on a $200NL table with your big hands if you bet $40 with a $40 stack than if you bet $40 with a $300 stack.

alan1983 said:

True stormswa, you do miss out on some good hands.

But also remember that you dont gain as much in monster vs monster but also dont lose as much.

And you got it right for the hands in between.

You get paid off everytime!

Someone said they like 2 put shortstacks allin with any kind of draw or mediocre hand!!! Thats what i count on!

If you have a gutshot and theres 6$ in the pot and someone bets 6, youre likely to fold.

When that someone only has 14$ left, a lot of people go ahead and put him all-in with their gutshots!

Sure ill miss out on a monster, but ill get paid off with any decent hand.

And half the time by the time a monster hits, youd have built a semi-decent stack on the table

Click to expand...

what I bolded is a losers way of thinking, you dont sit down thinking hey If I lose its only 1/2 a buy in. You should feel confident in any game you play.

robwhufc said:

At $25NL level it probably is either idiots or cowards, but at higher levels it's an established strategy - you are going to get more action on a $200NL table with your big hands if you bet $40 with a $40 stack than if you bet $40 with a $300 stack.

Click to expand...

It is called "the hammer" when you bet $40 and have $300 behind it. The person who is calling is not just risking the $40 to make the call but could risk the rest of his stack if it is less than $300 when you hammer home a large bet after the next card. The more money you have behind you the more you can influence a call. You go into a game shortstacked you don't have that threat of a large bet latter in the hand to scare people off. It is safer to make a risky call becuase their mistakes will cost them less also.

One advantage I do see to going in shortstacked is that you decrease the reverse implied odds to play against you. You have 99 and know that the person raising has a high pocket pair. If they have a ton of money you could stack them if you catch a 9 and they don't improve. You can't get that if the person raising doesn't have much behind them to start the hand. Big differnece if they have $40 or $300 when they start the hand as to how much you can pull out of them if you hit a monster.

stormswa, you missed the point of that comment.

You said you miss out on monster vs monsters.

Such hands tend to play themselves, a set vs set will see all the money going in.

I just pointed out youll be at receiving end of it too.

Its not about whether someone can play or not since money will go in in these cases.

And im not saying shortstack is to avoid that either. My point was that youre not missing out on THAT much.

Most pots will be small or average holdings and you could sit down with a 100 stack and barely win 20$ in a lot of time.