buying in on a live cash game

ive been playing 1/2 and the max buy in is $400. i see alot of players just buy in for $100 and then buy in for 3 to 4x. i think id your gonna chance $300 or $400 you should do it all at once. i see that that they dont want to get felted fast. but if you buy in short you cant get any real respect everyone tries to putthe short stacks all in on 1hand.

Totally agree, buy in max or 100 times big blind

Also agree here. Depending on a setting it is better to have a deeper stack that way as you said they will avoid being bullied.
But usually when I play we have limited rebuys

For cash games playing deep stack is very important so yes - buyin for the maximum that you can afford initially and if you loose it all - well just leave. If you do not have such money you better play at lower levels deep than playing at higher level short.

I've had trouble with a $1-$1-$5button straddle game. There is no cap and I always buy-in for $500 or $400 with $200 for topping off. However, most other players buy in for $100.... multiple times a night. Additionally, the game is super laggy. They call 3-bets with J2s and 34o for fun. The SPRs are usually very small; making bluffs very difficult. It feels odd as the money flows in all directions like they play with the same $100 and just pass it around.

killercon said:

ive been playing 1/2 and the max buy in is $400. i see alot of players just buy in for $100 and then buy in for 3 to 4x. i think id your gonna chance $300 or $400 you should do it all at once. i see that that they dont want to get felted fast. but if you buy in short you cant get any real respect everyone tries to putthe short stacks all in on 1hand.

Click to expand...

Hello, the truth is relative based on the strategy that everyone wants to use, if you are going to play deep or short, in my opinion I would always play measuring the income in relation to the value of the blinds between about 80 -100 bb of initial stack, and at least have a buyback power of about 3 times said stack, I do it that way when I play live and I don't find it bad, since I don't risk so much against those who are mega deep when you have to nail them all and at the same time I can keep the shorts at bay too! Success at the tables

There's no one correct answer here. If you understand how strategy changes with stack size you can probably comfortably beat these games with a 50 BB buy in ($100) using a solid shorter stack strat. At the same time, as you've eluded to, you'll be missing out on some big pot opportunities to stack deeper opponents. If your full stack / deep stack strat is better or even on the same level then it is likely more profitable to buy in deeper. If I was limited to $300-400 per session I may plan it out to have two buy ins of 75-100 BB each rather than 3 or 4 buy ins of 50 BB but I think it does depend on proficiency and preference a bit as many different approaches can be profitable.

I agree with those who are in favor of the max buy-in...that will discourage some other players trying to bully the short stacks and give you the maximum cash if you hit a monster hand. At the same time, I see why one might want to split their bankroll...on one occasion, I had a $200 bankroll to play $1-2 at Casino de Montreal. For some unknown reason, something in the back of my head told me to buy in for only $100 at first...boy, was I glad I did that...first hand I got pocket aces...all in and lost. Took my second $100 played for about 2 hours treading water, until 10 minutes before I had to leave to meet my wife...got pocket 9s against AJ spades...flop comes with 2 spades, one being the 9...the money went all in, and this time it held for a double up and a tidy $35 profit after 2 hours of play. If I had bought in for my entire bankroll to start, I would have been out in the first 5 minutes...so, it varies, but for the most part, I buy in for the max.

i play @ hardrocktampa and the max buy in is $300 for 1/2

i normally sit down with 160-200

and if i must fire another bullet, another 200