Buy In for Max Always???

[DexterJoe]

In another of my posts I got a couple of comments to buy in for the max allowed. Couple of questions:

1) I read on another post that a lower buy in than the max can reduce your variability. True or no?
2) What happens if I am on a table and I lose one (or a few) hands and I'm 30BB to 60BB under the max - should I automatically reload to get to 100BB? Let's say you take this to the extreme and every time you're below 100BB you re-buy - doesn't this maximize your potential to lose but still leave your upside capped?
3) Let's say I'm playing 10NL and I have $34. Putting aside from the fact that I am short on a bankroll, should I restrict myself to 3 tables instead of 4 and having one or all of them short stacked? Is it always a bad idea to play with less than the full buy in? Should it be a max of some lower number of tables so you can always reload? (back to 2nd question)

[catfish_01]

1) Don't know
2) I rebuy on my tables every time I get to 98 bb's or less. The reason for this is that there are plenty of players at $10 who make big mistakes in bigger pots making your full buy-in well worth it.
3) I would definitely not four-table at $10 with a $34 bankroll. You are risking variability no matter what, but even 3 tables is too much. (I tried this sort of thing at first too.) I would say two-table at most and don't expect good results. Note that a strong bankroll will empower you to make good decisions at your limit instead of weak ones.

[Quester]

[ QUOTE ]
In another of my posts I got a couple of comments to buy in for the max allowed. Couple of questions:

1) I read on another post that a lower buy in than the max can reduce your variability. True or no?
2) What happens if I am on a table and I lose one (or a few) hands and I'm 30BB to 60BB under the max - should I automatically reload to get to 100BB? Let's say you take this to the extreme and every time you're below 100BB you re-buy - doesn't this maximize your potential to lose but still leave your upside capped?
3) Let's say I'm playing 10NL and I have $34. Putting aside from the fact that I am short on a bankroll, should I restrict myself to 3 tables instead of 4 and having one or all of them short stacked? Is it always a bad idea to play with less than the full buy in? Should it be a max of some lower number of tables so you can always reload? (back to 2nd question)

[/ QUOTE ]

1) True. Your swings aren't as large because you can't lose a full 100BB or win a full 100BB. Thus, variance is lower.

2) I would definitely reload if I'm down 30BB. Unless I still cover the people on the table that I want to cover. The benefit to having a full stack is that you cover everyone at the table (up to 100BB), so you get their full stack when you stack them.

3) First, you should never ever EVER play with just 3 buy-ins at a particular limit. Second, it really depends. There are a significant number of benefits to being short stacked. Lower variance is just one reason. But if you are a decent player post-flop, playing with short stacks will probably cut into your hourly rate.

[DexterJoe]

It is disappointing to hit a hand and not take a bigger stack from somoeone. I wonder, though, am I getting more calls on these bigger hands because I am shortstacked?

Thanks for the feedback.

[boycalledroy]

No, you are getting calls because bad players make bad plays. Say you have 60bb instead of 100bb. Preflop raise is to 8bb and you have 77. You have no odds for catching a set. Flop comes 77A, you just lost the chance at gaining 92bb's cos of shortstacking.

[catfish_01]

Being short-stacked does have it's advantages. For instance, at any limit your decision making is made easier. Perhaps at lower limits, bigger stacks might not take you seriously. But the thing is, if you have a bigger stack, you can entice even bigger mistakes by good postflop play. In other words, if you're comfortable making a little profit, it isn't so bad playing short-stacked. But if you ever want to have a good winrate, you will need to buy in full.

[KreellKeiser]

1) True

2) YES... I always rebuy if my stack is down 20% or more from the max buy-in.

3) If you are playing 10NL with $34, don't be surprised when you lose all your money. [censored] happens, and even a winnign player can easily lose 3.5 buy-ins. Move down and build your roll. Seriously, play the penny tables (.01/.02) for now until you have enough to play within your bankroll.

Basically, if you're a winning player, you are losing money without a full stack. To illustrate the point, let's assume that of the times you get all your money in the pot, you win 70% of the hands. If you have a $5 stack, that means you profit an average of $3.50/hand. If you are playing with a full buy-in of $10 you average a profit of $7.00/hand.

[Quester]

[ QUOTE ]
It is disappointing to hit a hand and not take a bigger stack from somoeone. I wonder, though, am I getting more calls on these bigger hands because I am shortstacked?

Thanks for the feedback.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, you're running into players who don't understand basic pot odds and think that your range is wider because you are short.

[AliasMrJones]

What this comes down to is what you think your edge vs the rest of the table is. Variance swings both ways. With a smaller stack, you can lose less, but you can also win less.

The bottom line is if you think you have an edge over the rest of the table, you should buy in for the max in order to maximize the amount you can win because of your edge. I always buy in for the max at 50NL and I run a script so I can hit F10 and reload up to 100BB every time I drop below 100BB. This includes when I drop below by $.50 because of taking a blind. If you think you have an edge over the rest of the table, this will maximize your winrate.

The fact that you are questioning whether you should buy in for the max and lessening variance makes me think your are playing above your bankroll and/or comfort zone. You should generally have at least 20 buy-ins for the level you are playing. If you aren't comfortable sitting with a full stack, I would strongly suggest moving down to a lower level. Playing with scared money is not good.

[Fiksdal]

OP

Read this terrific post by Pokey (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=microplnl&Number=7964709& Searchpage=1&Main=7964709&Words=-%26quot%3BRe%3A%26quot%3B+Pokey&topic=&Search=true #Post7964709), it has it all. If you read it, and ever again intentionally sit at a table with less than the full buy-in, I will be very surprised.

[DexterJoe]

It isn't scared money - it is just all the money I have available out there with the Neteller crap going on. (I need to look into other funding opps...) I have a fixed amount available at FT and I am having difficulty adding more to it to play more. So, the 45BB or so stakes at a single table in the example I was referencing was the last of the bankroll. The question about variation is because I am on such a low bankroll and I don't have the option of lower limits at the site I am all but locked in to, so I have to hope I can minimize the swings until I can build it back up again. That's my goal - trying to build up again, so if I ever can take it off the site, there will be something worth getting. So I guess you could call it scared money, but it really isn't because if I lose it, c'est la vie... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[tiger_hall]

1)i buy in for just below max buy in as reduces my busto's... doesnt affect my betting tho...e.g. $60-75 in 100NL..
2)i dont rebuy money into the table as i prefer to know how much money i am down and also if im donking it slows me down
3)with $34.. i play 3X 10NL..

[ciki57]

If you think you have the edge over other players always reaload to max. If you don't think you have the edge... then leave the table.

Also use proper bankroll management and you won't have to worry about variance.

[DexterJoe]

[ QUOTE ]
OP

Read this terrific post by Pokey (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=microplnl&Number=7964709& Searchpage=1&Main=7964709&Words=-%26quot%3BRe%3A%26quot%3B+Pokey&topic=&Search=true #Post7964709), it has it all. If you read it, and ever again intentionally sit at a table with less than the full buy-in, I will be very surprised.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks - great article and info to consider. I guess that other partial buy in is best suited to reload after posting that first BB...

[DexterJoe]

[ QUOTE ]
Also use proper bankroll management and you won't have to worry about variance.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK - That raises another question - What is "good bankroll management?" I've seen that a couple of times and even searched but not seen a good explanation... I haven't even seen a great explanation in any of the books - seems most of them point to playing at the right level as good management. Is that all there is to it?

[RollTide77]

Well, the accepted rule is ~20 buyins to play at a level but I don't think you need $200 to play 10NL or $500 to play at 25NL. But with $35 just understand that you are VERY borderline. I know because I started playing 10NL with $50. As someone who was in your spot a few months ago I would recommend just playing one table at a time until you better understand all the concepts in the stickies - never open limping, what hands to play and where, c-betting, etc. It is possible to take 3-4 bad beats in a day playing 4 tables at once and then you're busto. Practice some of the methods and concepts in the stickies. You'll know when its time to add more tables. Its when you ask yourself, "How can I win some more money?" instead of "How can I keep from losing more money?"

[Quester]

[ QUOTE ]
OK - That raises another question - What is "good bankroll management?" I've seen that a couple of times and even searched but not seen a good explanation... I haven't even seen a great explanation in any of the books - seems most of them point to playing at the right level as good management. Is that all there is to it?

[/ QUOTE ]

You need to find your risk of ruin for your current bankroll. Risk of ruin is dependent on bankroll, standard deviation, and your win rate. Here is a basic calculator: http://support3.com/poker/bankroll/ror.asp

You should select a bankroll and limit so that your risk of ruin is tolerable. I can tell you that your risk of ruin on a 340BB bankroll is very high, even if you're a world class player. Many players here have gone through downswings of 10 buy-ins (1000BB) or even more.

[Quester]

[ QUOTE ]
1)i buy in for just below max buy in as reduces my busto's... doesnt affect my betting tho...e.g. $60-75 in 100NL..
2)i dont rebuy money into the table as i prefer to know how much money i am down and also if im donking it slows me down
3)with $34.. i play 3X 10NL..

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't mean to pick, but this is really bad advice. You can track how much you are down or up and still rebuy. Invest in Poker Tracker.

Here's why this is bad: You have been cold decked at 100NL and have $43 in your stack. You are dealt AA on the button. MP moves in for $100. Now, the most you can make here is $43, instead of $100 if you had a full stack.

Playing this way can seriously hurt your win rate.

[tiger_hall]

there are positives and negatives to everything.. in my experience where i have been down on a table is either because i have donked off chips or been bad beated... i probably rebuy into a table if i am playing well.. if not then i leave it...

[Quester]

[ QUOTE ]
there are positives and negatives to everything.. in my experience where i have been down on a table is either because i have donked off chips or been bad beated... i probably rebuy into a table if i am playing well.. if not then i leave it...

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd recommend basing your decision to play or not on how others at the table are playing, not necessarily how you are playing. Sometimes we just get bad cards and get sucked out on. That's not a good reason to leave a table full of loose passives.