Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

These games can be VERY profitable. Be prepared to have your all-in with AA get cracked by one of the three guys who call with QJo, T7s and KTo.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good lord you're ignorant. I said "this should be good", and you didn't disappoint.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Point conceded, I learned something new. If I see frommagio at the tables, I might actually be able to bully him with my big stack, lol

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are on the wrong site if this is how you really feel. Assuming you were just experiencing a momentary lapse of reason . . .

To clear up some of the sarcasm about stack sizes, you absolutely can NOT push $100 stacks around with a $300 stack. The most you can bet against these players is $100. Your stack size provides no advantage at all. You are actually disadvantaged against them IF there are other deeper stacks in the hand because you must focus more on the deeper stacks that can truly hurt you, but meanwhile will not be making the best plays against the smaller stack sizes.

I have played in $1/$2 $100 cap games from time to time when nothing bigger was available and they can be reasonably profitable. I tended to clear around $15-$20 per hour in these games. How you play is largely dependent upon the aggressiveness of your table.

You can still play speculative hands from late position or the blinds if the game has a lot of limping. In my experience, 6 limpers to the flop is not uncommon. A nice small pair or suited connector plays just fine in these conditions, especially since there will frequently be multiple callers on the flop/turn and many of these players are unable to adjust their bet sizes for the larger pots on the turn, allowing you to draw more often than you might think. I distinctly recall several "monsters" coming about from a $2 limp, a $10 flop call, a $20 turn call getting 4:1 and getting in another $60-$80 against two pair holding the nuts. The game frequently allowed for this.

When the game is more aggressive, as was also common, there will still frequently be 4 or more players to the flop, but for $10 instead of $2. In these situations you need to connect to win as you'll be looking to hit and go all-in for a pot-sized raise. That means premium top pair hands and big to medium pairs that can flop sets and overpairs. Worked for me, anyway. With the low blinds, it costs very little to sit and "have fun" socializing or whatever and then to play a $100 pot with the best of it. That's the game when the table is aggressive.

edit: spelling

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are on the wrong site if this is how you really feel. Assuming you were just experiencing a momentary lapse of reason . . .

[/ QUOTE ]

Meh, nothing wrong with playing recreationally and still wanting to play better. But thats not my point. I like to play in AC, I just don't need 4 hours worth of theoretical money. Since short stack poker doesn't seem that fun to me and I don't need the money, I'm going to pass.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
What are people's thoughts on the 100 max buy-in 1/2 games?

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, it sucks?

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

i play there all the time, and absoloutely crush those games..they are ridiculous. Very often you will get called by just ace high, you can push your top hands pre and always get a caller for his whole stack...just dont raise small or half the table will call, be tag all the way then when you are sitting on 500+ be aggressive and steal pots and wait for big ones..me and my friend went yesterday he turned 70 into 720 and i turned 100 into 400

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
when you are sitting on 500+ be aggressive and steal pots

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone already tried the "big stacks punishing little stacks in cash games" level. It didn't work then.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
when you are sitting on 500+ be aggressive and steal pots

[/ QUOTE ]

Someone already tried the "big stacks punishing little stacks in cash games" level. It didn't work then.

[/ QUOTE ]

It does work. In these games, lots of new players are buying in, and are trying to take shots to double up so that they can play 100bb or more. Few of them have the patience to play the small stack the way it should be played; most of them are in speculatively. It's easy to tell who is who.

There are also players who buy in for less, and who then play scared. They are easy to identify, and it is not hard to push them around.

In these $100 max buyin games, it is very easy for big stacks to repeatedly pick up the small stacks. It doesn't matter whether small stacks have an advantage in some theoretical sense; in these games, the small stacks are there to be taken.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good lord you're ignorant. I said "this should be good", and you didn't disappoint.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you get all 800 of your posts with one-liner insults?