i have a game buy-in theory question
 

your bankroll is 6000
your game will be 1-2 no-limit
you have a choice between two games
the first game is capped at a 300 buy-in which 6000 is plenty
the second game is uncapped
is it better to take the capped game or to buy-in into the uncapped game?
in either case you would buy in for 100bb.
the thing that bothers me about the uncapped games is that it plays much bigger then the blinds allow for. some will buy-in for 500 to 1000. 6000 bankroll does not support these matching buy-ins
please this is a honest question

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

Doesn't make much of a difference though I'd always walk away from the game if I had an effective stack I was uncomfortable losing. That's more likely to happen in the uncapped game.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

i try to keep within my bankroll. i dont wanna buy in to a 1-2 game with 500 or more. it seems that many players buy in for at least that. because of this im missin g out on the best poker room in biloxi. i keep to the 300 max games.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

these guys make many bully raises of 40 or more. what that does to me is to make me tighten up waitig for the big hands but then thats not poker. a hand like 88 i will play for a 6bb raise but no way am i gonna play for 20bb. thats the inherit problem with uncapped small blind games. im a good tag player but i prefer smaller fluctuations to my bankroll. im wondering what some of you guys do in these non normal situations?

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

[ QUOTE ]
these guys make many bully raises of 40 or more. what that does to me is to make me tighten up waitig for the big hands but then thats not poker. a hand like 88 i will play for a 6bb raise but no way am i gonna play for 20bb. thats the inherit problem with uncapped small blind games. im a good tag player but i prefer smaller fluctuations to my bankroll. im wondering what some of you guys do in these non normal situations?

[/ QUOTE ]

You just described people playing very bad poker. That should increase your expectation. That more than off-sets for any increased variance when you're properly rolled. Again, they can't make you play for more than your effective stack.

Now if you play poorly and make bigger mistakes than their mistakes of course you should avoid that game (or fix that leak). A game where players ignore the math behind poker is a good game to sit in though. I wouldn't let their stacks keep me out of that game. Again, effective stacks are what count. The chips after that might as well be in their bank account as they can't come into play against you. Would you be hesitant to play 1/2 with a $200 cap against Bill Gates if he played poorly?

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

Again, I would stand up if your effective stack ever got large enough to make you unomfortable though.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

A key point that hasn't been raised is that your variance will be higher in the uncapped game. This will increase your Risk of Ruin regardless of your bankroll.

It's possible that your EV will increase as well since you can get paid bigger on your big hands, but for someone who's a little bit risk averse it's likely that they'd prefer the capped game. However, there is no right answer to this since it is dependent on each person's tolerance of risk.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

The variance wouldn't necessarily be higher. In the capped game if people are willing to race for buy-ins in an attempt to double up to a big stack the variance will be higher there.

The un-capped game the way he's describing it should be very low variance. If people are opening for 20BB's just buy in short, pick up a premium hand, push it, be crushing his range.

The only bad thing is when he does double, triple, quadruple up he's going to for sure be covered where he might not be in the capped game. For this reason he should rat-hole if he's worried about that. You should never play w/ a bigger effective stack than you're comfortable losing.

I've never got why people are so afraid to have big stacks sitting at the table. Any money after what you've got on the table isn't really even there. Like I said, if Bill Gates sits in your 1/2 game w/ billions behind what's the big deal?

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

i am of course talking about the beau rivage games in biloxi. i have been playing only at the IP which is capped at 300.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

[ QUOTE ]
The un-capped game the way he's describing it should be very low variance. If people are opening for 20BB's just buy in short, pick up a premium hand, push it, be crushing his range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big wins also increase variance. Anytime you're playing for your stack more often in one game than you are in another, variance goes up.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The un-capped game the way he's describing it should be very low variance. If people are opening for 20BB's just buy in short, pick up a premium hand, push it, be crushing his range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big wins also increase variance. Anytime you're playing for your stack more often in one game than you are in another, variance goes up.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experience the lower the starting stacks compared to the blinds the more often you play for your starting stack. Ever play 1/2 with a $100 max buy in? It's like the final table of an old WPT tourney. AJ = the nuts

Also, I really don't think that statement is true. If you sit in a brad booth game and he open shoves blind for 100BB's and you get to call him for your stack w/ a premium hand you really think a game with repeated situations of that has more variance than a well played game that doesn't necessarily play as big? Your edge has a lot to do with variance too.

I don't know how either of the games OP mentioned play (other than his mention of some very unsound play in the uncapped game). There's nothing theoretical that really supports not stepping into the uncapped game.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

Which has a greater risk of ruin?

a) 1/30 of your bank-roll even money flips w/ a coin that gives you a 75% edge

b) 1/100 of your bank-roll even money flips w/ a coin that gives you a 51% edge

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The un-capped game the way he's describing it should be very low variance. If people are opening for 20BB's just buy in short, pick up a premium hand, push it, be crushing his range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big wins also increase variance. Anytime you're playing for your stack more often in one game than you are in another, variance goes up.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experience the lower the starting stacks compared to the blinds the more often you play for your starting stack. Ever play 1/2 with a $100 max buy in? It's like the final table of an old WPT tourney. AJ = the nuts

Also, I really don't think that statement is true. If you sit in a brad booth game and he open shoves blind for 100BB's and you get to call him for your stack w/ a premium hand you really think a game with repeated situations of that has more variance than a well played game that doesn't necessarily play as big? Your edge has a lot to do with variance too.

I don't know how either of the games OP mentioned play (other than his mention of some very unsound play in the uncapped game). There's nothing theoretical that really supports not stepping into the uncapped game.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is trivially true and doesn't really matter. this is an issue of frequency vs. magnitude. you will be shoving more when you are short stacking, but you will be shoving for much more money in the uncapped game if they are playing like maniacs.

assuming your br can handle the swings, if you really believe you have an edge you shouldn't be buying in short. (unless you are extremely risk averse, but then i would say you didn't really have an edge).

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The un-capped game the way he's describing it should be very low variance. If people are opening for 20BB's just buy in short, pick up a premium hand, push it, be crushing his range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big wins also increase variance. Anytime you're playing for your stack more often in one game than you are in another, variance goes up.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experience the lower the starting stacks compared to the blinds the more often you play for your starting stack. Ever play 1/2 with a $100 max buy in? It's like the final table of an old WPT tourney. AJ = the nuts

Also, I really don't think that statement is true. If you sit in a brad booth game and he open shoves blind for 100BB's and you get to call him for your stack w/ a premium hand you really think a game with repeated situations of that has more variance than a well played game that doesn't necessarily play as big? Your edge has a lot to do with variance too.

I don't know how either of the games OP mentioned play (other than his mention of some very unsound play in the uncapped game). There's nothing theoretical that really supports not stepping into the uncapped game.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is trivially true and doesn't really matter. this is an issue of frequency vs. magnitude. you will be shoving more when you are short stacking, but you will be shoving for much more money in the uncapped game if they are playing like maniacs.

assuming your br can handle the swings, if you really believe you have an edge you shouldn't be buying in short. (unless you are extremely risk averse, but then i would say you didn't really have an edge).

[/ QUOTE ]

he'd be buying in for the same in either game. his effective stack (at the beginning of the game) would be the same in both. the shoves would be for the same amount.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

[ QUOTE ]
Which has a greater risk of ruin?

a) 1/30 of your bank-roll even money flips w/ a coin that gives you a 75% edge

b) 1/100 of your bank-roll even money flips w/ a coin that gives you a 51% edge

[/ QUOTE ]

a)& b) Std. Dev = 1 a) (75-25)/100 EV=0.5 b) 51-49/100 EV=0.02

Calculated at: http://www.poker-tools-online.com/riskofruin.html

a) 0.000000%

b) 1.831564%

But of course, you provide a skewed example.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The un-capped game the way he's describing it should be very low variance. If people are opening for 20BB's just buy in short, pick up a premium hand, push it, be crushing his range.

[/ QUOTE ]

Big wins also increase variance. Anytime you're playing for your stack more often in one game than you are in another, variance goes up.

[/ QUOTE ]

In my experience the lower the starting stacks compared to the blinds the more often you play for your starting stack. Ever play 1/2 with a $100 max buy in? It's like the final table of an old WPT tourney. AJ = the nuts

Also, I really don't think that statement is true. If you sit in a brad booth game and he open shoves blind for 100BB's and you get to call him for your stack w/ a premium hand you really think a game with repeated situations of that has more variance than a well played game that doesn't necessarily play as big? Your edge has a lot to do with variance too.

I don't know how either of the games OP mentioned play (other than his mention of some very unsound play in the uncapped game). There's nothing theoretical that really supports not stepping into the uncapped game.

[/ QUOTE ]

that is trivially true and doesn't really matter. this is an issue of frequency vs. magnitude. you will be shoving more when you are short stacking, but you will be shoving for much more money in the uncapped game if they are playing like maniacs.

assuming your br can handle the swings, if you really believe you have an edge you shouldn't be buying in short. (unless you are extremely risk averse, but then i would say you didn't really have an edge).

[/ QUOTE ]

he'd be buying in for the same in either game. his effective stack (at the beginning of the game) would be the same in both. the shoves would be for the same amount.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly. Except the effective stack would be "smaller" in comparison to other people's stacks in the uncapped game, meaning it gets put in the middle more. Variance goes up. Also, it'll likely get all-in on earlier streets than in an uncapped game. Your edge increases as you see more streets. AA will win over KK something like 4.5:1. So at best your PF equity is ~82%. You can have people putting in money on the turn drawing absolutely dead. That's equity of 100%. So getting your money in on the earlier streets means your edge win putting money in is likely to be smaller. Variance goes up.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

that's being a nit. i forget what he said he's got for a roll but if he's got 30 standard buy ins he should play if it's the better of the 2 games (and games where guys open for 20X the BB tend to be about as juicy as it gets). if he runs cold go to the other one. now, if it's the tougher game, play the other one. if his effective stack gets to the point where he's uncomfortable losing that amount of money, stand up. no way i'm seeing any sound "theory" that should keep him out of that game though. even if it does play with bigger swings that's why you play within your roll and move down if you hit a bad stretch. advising him to stay out of the game where a bunch of bozos are tossing in 20BB's w/ AJ off (which is the type of game he's/you're describing) because you don't like getting it in as a big favorite for your stack is not right.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

[ QUOTE ]
no way i'm seeing any sound "theory" that should keep him out of that game though.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is what I said before you started getting all argumentative with the RoR/Variance point:

[ QUOTE ]
However, there is no right answer to this since it is dependent on each person's tolerance of risk.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're correct that this is the only theoretical basis for his consideration and shouldn't necessarily provide an answer. Whether it guides his decision is up to him.

Now if we're going to be discussing theory then don't say things like "if you're a bigger favorite you should play in that one, if not play in the other one." Put that in the beginner's forum.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

the capped game is "lighter" of the two games. much of the time there is not a lot of pre-flop raising. but yet the average raise is probably 6-8bbs. the uncapped game has way more money on the table. sometimes it plays like the capped game but often there are some friggen maniacs who buy in for 300-500bb+

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

im a risk adverse type of player. i prefer smaller profits extended over longer periods of time if that would keep me in action. i turn down high risk small edges to ensure i survive. most of todays players probably hate that and prefer to take these risks to ensure max profit. these two games i see in biloxi seem to be a extension of that.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

Not trying to be argumentative. Just never get why players are scared by big stacks when all that matters is effective stacks. If a guy has you covered he has you covered. Everything after that might as well be money he is getting ready to re-buy with as far as you're concerned. In a $300 capped buy in game would you want to walk away if a guy sat 3 grand in bills off to the side and said he'd leave if he got busted out of that?

Also not trying to pick fights over theory. The only thing that disturbs me (in the sense that it's wrong thinking) is the very common attitude of "don't play nl against a guy w/ deep pockets who'll bet crazy". Thinking like that is throwing away easy, easy money.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

another thing is that when the few times i play in such maniac games i play ultra tight and wait for great hands. i wont play say for example 88 for such large raises. but i dont even know if that strategy is correct. forget about limping with 55 hoping to stack someone. i do very good in the capped games because the playing field is even so to speak. so all of the posts to this thread have been excellent and it seems to me that i should not be afraid of the uncapped games even if im only willing to buy-in for 100-150bbs. is this the consensus?

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

if it plays like you say I'd buy in as short as allowed and punish the terrible pre-flop play. If you know how to play a short-stack that game is an absolute honey-pot.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

well i will be back in biloxi aug 24th and i will take a shot at the beau rivage uncapped game. it will be the first time i have played other then the ips capped game.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

[ QUOTE ]
...If a guy has you covered he has you covered...

The only thing that disturbs me (in the sense that it's wrong thinking) is the very common attitude of "don't play nl against a guy w/ deep pockets who'll bet crazy". Thinking like that is throwing away easy, easy money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I see your point, but still disagree for the following reason. If a guy has you covered, that's one thing. If EVERYONE at the table has you covered, it's something else entirely. If it's just one guy you'll be playing for your stack when he's in the hand, but if everyone has you covered you'll be playing for your stack EVERY hand.

So it's less a matter of being scared by a big stack than it is realizing that I can buy in $X here and play any number of styles of poker, or buy in $X there and have to play such that if I call a "standard" PF raise, I may be committing my stack. The second leads to short-stack poker, which while it can profitable can also cost you a chance to make better equity decisions on later streets when the bets get bigger anyway. So it's a cost/benefit thing. I prefer deep-stack poker for those reasons.

But yeah, you're absolutely right that a crazy better shouldn't drive you off. In fact, you should probably smile. Especially if he's on your right.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

in some of these crazy games its mainly like 1-3 maniac players at the most but if i buy in for my prefered stack of 100-150bb just about all others will have me covered. my bankroll is a standard 6000 and change.i do not want to buy in for 500 every session as 6000 is not enough except for "shots". im most comfortable with 100-150bb stacks. on the other hand im a awesome short stack player. it comes natural for me and if you ask any who have played with me they will tell you that im very solid.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

i misunderstood; thought you meant capped as in the capped games online

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

The capped game would be plenty for our bankroll.

Re: i have a game buy-in theory question
 

Have you considered actually buying in LOWER? That way it's harder to be bullied off of hands because you're much more likely to be all-in when you have a hand that warrants big bets. You don't have to make the choice of folding or going deeper into your bankroll, and if you get knocked out you can just reload.

It's not a tournament, so losing your small stack isn't the end. The advantage of being big stacked in a ring game is that if you stack off with someone and win, you'll make more money, but tactically small stacks have advantages that make up for that. It's definitely a tradeoff, but if you're uncomfortable with losing your 100bb buy-in, then think about buying in smaller.