well I fogot to mention that most people at my casino buy in for $100..people who buy in for 40bb's just ruin the game imo
well I fogot to mention that most people at my casino buy in for $100..
However I have heard poeple say this that shortstackers ruin the game. However I havent heard a good reason why it ruins the game except for the people that buyin for the max and want everyone else tyo do the same.
However I do think if you are a best player at the table you want to buy in for the max. it is an advantage to have a bigger stack. Just I feel when you are first coming to the table you have no idea where you stand untill you play some rounds.
but at the same time I dont like the rule of you can buy in for the biggest stack at the table. I have seen some 1-2 or 1-3 all of a sudden play like a 2-5 or 5-10 becuase of this rule.
I would agree with you on this Arjonius.. I do feel I play better with a shorter stack than a big stack. I noticed this in tournament and then started buying in for shorter amounts. And after I did that. My winrate was a lot better.If you lose more big pots than you win, it may seem to make sense to limit how much they can cost you. However, this might also be indicative of a meaningful leak in your game, in which case a far better solution would be to fix it.
Otoh, if you win more big pots, then it's probably more profitable to have more money on the table. While your losses will be larger, so will your wins, and you'll end up with more in your pocket.
If you can't afford the full buyin, then why are you playing?Playing live is different to online....we cant all afford the full buy ins for brick and mortar, but if you are playing 2nl online and you buy in for 0.80c then that just ruins the game......if you are going to do something, then do it properly and atleast buy in for 100bbs
But I feel the weak players, At least what I seen are the one that what you say buy in short. I think it makes the better players more of a disadvantge.If you can't afford the full buyin, then why are you playing?
As for shortstacking, I don't do it, but outside of friendly games, it's not a concern that I'd ruin the game for the other players. When people say this, part of the reason is that it takes them outside their comfort zones, which they dislike. But if I'm a good shortstacker, I want them to feel uncomfortable - just not enough that it leads the weak players to leave.
Buy in for the max so you have all the fish covered and you can win the maximum when you have the nuts.
I seem to be more profitable playing at 40BB than at 100BB.. Most times I feel like I am not the best player at the table, but most times I am not the worst either. There been times I wish I had more chips than times I am glad I didnt. and even with the fish I been sucked out on and find too hard to make up the max at the casino. Not so much as players ability... but rather game play at my local casino seems tighter than most.Short, simple and very true ^
Unless you are a short stack guru, buying in full will always be more profitable (assuming you are profitable)
yea sure,i dont disagree with that.I, personally ,like to have max buy in so that when i have the stone cold nuts or a very good hand i want to get max value.problem is this works vice versa. losing 100 BB is as easy as winning them.but i still always go for the max buy in.Actually what I have read this theory is wrong.. They say you should always buy in for the minimum and study the players at the table and then if you feel confident you should buy more chips to the max..
Who are "they"? And why is what they say best for you even if it works for them?Actually what I have read this theory is wrong.. They say you should always buy in for the minimum and study the players at the table and then if you feel confident you should buy more chips to the max..
Cardplayer "Jonathon Duhamel Issue" Volume 23 Issue 24 Pg74.Who are "they"? And why is what they say best for you even if it works for them?
The quote is unattributed, so I can't tell whose advice it is. In any case, it applies to a situation where you have no idea of your opponents skills, and thus of your relative ability.Cardplayer "Jonathon Duhamel Issue" Volume 23 Issue 24 Pg74.
The quote is unattributed, so I can't tell whose advice it is. In any case, it applies to a situation where you have no idea of your opponents skills, and thus of your relative ability.
But how often is that actually so? In my case, when I sit at a cash table, even if I don't recognize anyone, I know I'm almost certainly +EV because in the long term, I've won at every level I've ever played. The chance I'll land on a table stacked with good players I don't recognize is minimal.
In addition, you can table select. This isn't necessarily limited to looking for weak tables. Even a table that's strong overall can be quite profitable if there are one or two big enough fish and you get decent position. You want to cover them, and you simply avoid and/or pot control vs the good players.