Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

I love playing 1-2 NL $100 max here in SD, but only one casino spreads it. All the others spread like 1-2 NL $60 max, which is complete crock if you ask me.

The $100 max games can get a little allin-ish at times, but for the most part, there is some solid play with it. The problem lies when people get short stacked. It usually becomes an allin fest with them, but you'll have that on any table.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

I played these guys for about 50 hours and made about $20 an hour in the game, I didnt enjoy it though.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is what I do: Get there early/mid afternoon, and work against the other $100 stacks to grow your stack. With reasonable luck, you'll be nicely stacked for the evening, and you can punish the new small stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This should be good. Please explain how to "punish" a $100 stack with a $300 stack.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

The big stack can totally run over the short stacks! Haven't you read the books and, like, watched poker on TV?

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

Yeah, this is preposterous. This isn't a tournament where the small stacks feel pressure from escalating blinds. Going into -EV situations just to build a stack to 'punish' smaller stacks is beyond stupid.

The $100 stack doesn't care whether you have a $100 stack or a $1000 stack. That's what makes short stack play so potentially profitable (you play perfect short stacked poker, while the big stacks can't adequately adjust to you because they also have to play against the other big stacks).

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, this is preposterous. This isn't a tournament where the small stacks feel pressure from escalating blinds. Going into -EV situations just to build a stack to 'punish' smaller stacks is beyond stupid.

The $100 stack doesn't care whether you have a $100 stack or a $1000 stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "opposite" strategy could feasibly make sense though. You sit down at the table with $100, noticing that the drunk, bad players have been playing for awhile and amassed $1000 stacks. You might take some risk (possibly small -EV situations) to build your stack so you can play bigger stack poker against the bad players. This concept is proposed by Largay, in certain situations. (It led to the controversial and misunderstood play he made with 82s, or whatever it was.)

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

Understand the mindset of your opponents also. Many of the bad players I play against in L.A. think they are getting bullied by bigger stacks, for whatever reason, and will fold more often to bigger stacks(or call more, just know which type of player it is). I've literally heard on multiple occasions that a big stack is "bullying us with his huge stack" or "using his stack to punish us" or some other wrong strategic concept. Obviously this comes from watching tournament poker on t.v. and misapplying the concepts in a cash game.

Are they wrong for thinking this way? Of course. But can you profit off of their terrible thinking? Yes.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is what I do: Get there early/mid afternoon, and work against the other $100 stacks to grow your stack. With reasonable luck, you'll be nicely stacked for the evening, and you can punish the new small stacks.

[/ QUOTE ]

This should be good. Please explain how to "punish" a $100 stack with a $300 stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

At first I thought this was just a really stupid comment, but now I realize that you might in fact be an actual idiot nonsavant.

So I'll concede your point, and reverse my opinion. My new strategy is to buy in for $100, and toss away $50 quickly to acquire the advantage of being a smaller stack. Then I'll punish those $100 stacks, and run from the $25s.

I'm here to learn; thanks for the help!

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

If it's anything like the capped buy-in, low stakes NL games in LA, it's worth playing. Some people beef on the low max buy-ins, lack of play and the rake, but the reality is the low stakes NL games draw a lot of newer players and guys who are just looking for entertainment. That's a good thing if you're willing to watch what's going on at the table and play the style that capitalizes on what you observe.

Out here (LA) the smaller games play like a cross between low stakes limit (call call call call raise call call call call...repeat on future streets) and the early rounds of a rebuy tournament (raise reraise all-in call call A9 v QJ v 77). Admittedly, the low stakes NL games in LA play <50 BB deep, but I'd bet that 1/2 100 max game plays similarly.

You may have more swings in this game than you'd like to see as guys overvalue hands PF, chase draws, show outrageous bluffs and mangle everything else, but therein lies the beauty of the low stakes NL game. You can consistently pick up 3+ buy-ins courtesy of a few bad players and the 1-2 truly awful players at each table.

You're not going to sharpen your deep stack play or build your overall poker acumen and you're going to see several hands that make you go "WTF was that?", but you'll make dough. And, yeah, they suck out and the house takes it's end. It's the business we've chosen.

Edmond

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

I'm looking to play for fun though, not make money. Just play for a couple of hours. This doesn't strike me as fun, at least not compared to other stuff I can do with my time.