1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

I'm going to be driving through Niagara Falls in a couple of days and I'm debating stopping at Casino Niagara or Fallsview to play 1/2 NL. I don't need to kill time but I'm also not in a hurry so time isn't a factor. I'm really just interested if people think its worth it.

I've been playing 1/2NL in AC lately where the max bux-in is $300. I've been really liking it and I'm especially liking the challenge of deep-stacked poker. I'm not a huge fan of short-stack poker. Its just more boring due to not being able to play as many speculative hands. What are people's thoughts on the 100 max buy-in 1/2 games?

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

it sucks ass thats what.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

Is it all preflop/flop play?

As in you get it all in preflop or the flop?

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

Go play the lottery. Thats what I have to say on this issue.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm going to be driving through Niagara Falls in a couple of days and I'm debating stopping at Casino Niagara or Fallsview to play 1/2 NL. I don't need to kill time but I'm also not in a hurry so time isn't a factor. I'm really just interested if people think its worth it.

I've been playing 1/2NL in AC lately where the max bux-in is $300. I've been really liking it and I'm especially liking the challenge of deep-stacked poker. I'm not a huge fan of short-stack poker. Its just more boring due to not being able to play as many speculative hands. What are people's thoughts on the 100 max buy-in 1/2 games?

[/ 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. You'll also have a few deep stack competitors to contend with. It can be interesting and fun.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

50 bets deep isn't *that* short.. the game probably plays pretty wild.. avg chip stack is probably >100bb. if you want to play you should.. you should probably be getting all in on the flop a lot of the time

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

If Florida 1-2 100 max buy-in is any indication........take your meds before playing.

I'm at my wits end right now.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
50 bets deep isn't *that* short.. the game probably plays pretty wild.. avg chip stack is probably >100bb. if you want to play you should.. you should probably be getting all in on the flop a lot of the time

[/ QUOTE ]

Anything that involves generally getting all-in on the flop is short stack to me. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I'm thinking I might pass. I'll only have 4-5 hours at best, and if I have to spend most of that just building to 250-300 I think I'll shoot myself. Plus, if most people are at 100ish it doesn't really matter if I've built my stack, its still not worth playing some of the fun hands.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

A lot of the regulars at this game will start out by putting all their chips in the middle VERY LITE pre-flop until they either have 150-200BBs or lose their buy-ins.

I remember watching a regular a couple years ago, go ALL IN preflop with KJos his very second hand and I didn't understand it. Only later did I see that he was just trying to build a stack.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

its as mentioned before, 2 bet or 1 bet poker... you arent playing the turn and river...

its also as mentioned already, build a stack poker... once you have a stack then you can punish the players coming in and/or play deep against other deep stacks.

is there a 1/2 the deep stack rule etc? if so, get moved to a table that is deep already and buy in for the max they will let you.

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.

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?

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

I personally don't mind the $100 buy in 1/2 NL at the Seneca casinos. The players are absolutely terrible and if you're patient and play good hands in position it's easy to win stacks. The key in my opinion is to just push your edges and if you get unlucky then so be it. Assuming you don't mind reloading a few times the game is very beatable.

Granted, theres times I go there, have $700 in front of me and have only beat the game for $100 or $200 but gambling is about taking small edges and being willing to go for em.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

A big stack has nothing to do with it. You can scare a $100 no more with $500 than you can with $100. (Unless, as another poster mentioned, there is a player so stupid that he thinks $500 can hurt his $100 stack more than $100.)

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

The Fallsview 1/2 game is verrrrrrry soft. A lot of people give poker a try, plop down $100, and after a few hands of folding get antsy and get all the money in the middle. They don't mind too much since, to many of them, poker is like BJ (where losing $100 in 5 minutes is no big deal).

A downside of a $300 max buy-in is the fish will be thinking, "everyone else at the game has $300+, I don't want to put that kind of money in play". I would much rather play with fish who are 'restricted' to buying in for $100 than to only play with better players that can buy-in for $300 at a 1/2 NL game.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

exactly, most of the time you will find the person calling you their whole stack with pretty much nothing..and please don't talk about places you prolly havent played..

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

The game is very beatable in South Florida. Table selection is important I like to find a table with plenty of 200+ stacks or one with at least one guy whipping out 100's to prove his status, these tables are very easy to find and every table has a couple guys with no idea how to play poker, just there to gambool. I have watched alot of the 2/5NL 100 max here in South FL and will try it soon, I believe there is money to be made at these tables also with correct stratagy. I think a $10-15 win rate(1/2NL 100 max) for a slightly below average player(myself) is very realistic and likely double or more that at 2/5. A good player should be able make more. I think the 2/5 sessions will need to be long to be profitable(8-12 hour sessions), 24 hour casinos are likely best for that.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
(Unless, as another poster mentioned, there is a player so stupid that he thinks $500 can hurt his $100 stack more than $100.)

[/ QUOTE ]

That's all I was asserting. I of course wasn't trying to argue that playing big stack poker in a cash game is a viable strategy.

Also, playing with a short stack can be a pain sometimes, but it's a necessary evil. It keeps the bad players in the game longer.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]

A downside of a $300 max buy-in is the fish will be thinking, "everyone else at the game has $300+, I don't want to put that kind of money in play". I would much rather play with fish who are 'restricted' to buying in for $100 than to only play with better players that can buy-in for $300 at a 1/2 NL game.

[/ QUOTE ]

The players at 300-max suck. Any skill-edge they have against 100-max players is more than made up for the fact that they're losing more money.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
I think a $10-15 win rate(1/2NL 100 max) for a slightly below average player(myself) is very realistic and likely double or more that at 2/5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true, a slightly below average player will lose money (and quite a bit of it). [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think a $10-15 win rate(1/2NL 100 max) for a slightly below average player(myself) is very realistic and likely double or more that at 2/5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not true, a slightly below average player will lose money (and quite a bit of it). [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

To clarify, at $4 rake and 30 hands per hour, an average player is losing $12 an hour. A slightly below average player loses $15 an hour, not wins $15 an hour.

Re: 1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

A big stack has nothing to do with it. You can scare a $100 no more with $500 than you can with $100. (Unless, as another poster mentioned, there is a player so stupid that he thinks $500 can hurt his $100 stack more than $100.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Jeff, I think your imagination may be a bit hampered by not having experienced these games. You have to see it to believe it. These games are very profitable, and the method that I described is a reliable way to crush them.