Egon Towst
Cardschat Elite
Silver Level
You would be mistaken then. Ed Miller and Rolf Slotboom have both written extensively about the strategy of short-stacking in ring games.
You would be mistaken then. Ed Miller and Rolf Slotboom have both written extensively about the strategy of short-stacking in ring games.
thetaxman1
Visionary
Bronze Level
Seems to me if you can win short stack and big stack then you have the best of both worlds. Right now I am building a bank roll. I usually time my sessions based on point accumulations in the poker rooms i play. I have found for my level of play that i win more st than bs. Off course im still playing micros what do i really know yet.
J
jballer20
Rising Star
Bronze Level
u should always buy in for the max because in ring games you want to play hands like low suited connectors for cheap. this way if you flop big you can bust some one with a big hand. plus then doubling up will get you more money. as far as you doing better when min buying... it is either in your head our maybe your playing different and just not noticing.
N.D.
Visionary
Silver Level
So really you're asking for future reference? I'd say keep doing what you're doing while it's working and you're building your roll. After you have enough to where you can sit with max or a buy in comparable to the rest of the table while taking maybe 2%-5% of your BR, then worry about bringing the max.
I think about this stuff a lot, and at FTP where the least you can take to a table is $2 for 5c/10c for NL and PL games, I'm figuring that to even short stack "safely", I need at least $200 total to cover downswings + days when I'm not playing my best. I'd much prefer to take just 1%-3% to a table than 5%, and yet I see people saying they want to take 10%. The way I figure it, taking 10% of your br to the table at a time only affords you 9 losing sessions before you're going broke, cuz once you move up it kinda bruises your pride a bit to drop in levels or buy in ammount.
I feel like if you only have $50 or less, you have to decide for yourself what you'd prefer. Personally I'd rather get the most play for my buck, and short stacking + cheap sng's are the way to go in that regard. Even $100 doesn't go very far once you consider things like rake and tournament fees, and that's not even counting losing sessions.
I believe the max buy-in for 5c/10c is $10, so until $10 is around 3% of my br, I'll gladly take my lumps as a short stack. Furthermore I've yet to see a max buy-in for limit hold em. Even at the tiniest table it's in the thousands of dollars, imho it's nuts to take thousands to such a little table, unless you just want to show off.
Having said all that, I'm sick of spinning my wheels, so the next time I have even a little loot(Chris Ferguson Challenge), I'm breaking Fergie's rules, and just taking a chance, for the fun of it.
K
KDS63
Rock Star
Silver Level
From what I've seen, Dweezel is right here for min buy-ins. It can be pretty profitable if you have 3 or 4 mins at the table and they go all-in each hand - often with crap. But it can be frustrating also because they sometimes hit their goal - to suck out regardless of what they start with.
My thoughts on the original post -- I typically don't buy in with min, but I don't buy in max either. If the max is $10, I'll usually buy in with $4 (double the min) to give me some play flexibility but also to limit the potential damage -- I'm a low-stakes player until I hit my big win!! ;-)
My biggest problem is thinking the big stacks are buying a pot - of course sometimes that's true, but more often than not when I make the hard call with 2nd pair and a big kicker, the big-bet-big-stack has me beat.
