Re: Buy-ins
[ QUOTE ]
When buying in at a table, either on line or live, should you buy in for the maximum amount allowed? I remember reading in Dan Harrington's book that you should buy in for the minimum, but have heard elsewhere that buying in for the full amount gives you some depth. Thoughts please.
[/ QUOTE ]
Barry Greenstein writes in Ace on the River that he normally buys in for the minimum. Reasons for buying in for the minimium:
1. They can't bluff you when you are all in.
2. Gives you a low profile so people don't ask you for loans or to be staked
3. You won't be targeted as a big winner, so others won't be afraid to play with you
4. Easier to limit losses
5. Forces you to play solid since you don't have enough chips to run bluffs with weaker hands
6. Better chance of keeping hit and run artists at the table since they can't get very far ahead when they beat you
7. People tend to play better when they are ahead, and worse when they are stuck. So, you will have money in front of you when you are playing well, and not so much money in front of you when you are playing poorly
8. If on a short bankroll, must protect it. For example, better to use 3 $200 buy ins than 1 $600 buy in if short on funds.
Reasons to buy in for the max:
1. If you are one of the best players, more chips = more tools to work with
2. Foes want to play you if they think they can win a lot
3. Gamblers don't want to play with nits
4. When the game is good, there is a race to get the loose money being thrown around. The better player needs chips to get his share
5. Its difficult for people to know when you are losing
6. You may feel more confident with a big stack
7. You don't have to make the play adjustments needed for short stacks. For example, you can play drawing hands with deep money + good implied odds.
See Ace on the River p. 174-76
|