|
|
#1
10-23-2006, 06:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
If there was no minimum buy-in (2)
I already made a thread about this, but I asked my question in a very bad way, causing confusion. I would like to try again. Before I can ask my question, we must consider two key points:
1. In a No-Limit hold'em game with many players and different stacks, a player who is short stacked compared to multiple of his opponents has a mathematical advantage. (If you agree/understand, you can skip this paragraph) This is because he will get to see all the cards and the showdown even if he has too few chips to call all bets. Also, deep stacked players will (correctly) play speculative hands against each other, justified by the implied odds (potentially winning a large amount of chips after flopping a very strong holding). However, the short stacked player will benefit from this because he offers little to no implied odds when he plays a hand. The deep stacked players are aware of this, but even the presence of the annoying short stack is not enough to make them reconsider their strategy. They would end up losing too much money against the other deep stacks if they did. 2. Hold'em doesn't work with antes. It works with blinds. Because of this, a player who takes a seat must endure the worst part of the entire orbit first (being the big blind and the small blind). Later in the orbit, he will be in the other, profitable positions unless he has gone broke already at that point. Now that we have that out of the way, here comes the actual question: A player with excellent preflop skills but very poor postflop skills decides to buy-in to a new No Limit Hold'em game. The game allows players to buy-in for as little or as much as they wish. Our friend has no desire to become a good no-limit hold'em player. In the game, a player must wait for the big blind before he can join, wether he has just arrived or has just added more chips to his stack after going broke. How much exactly should our hero buy-in for? 
|
|
#5
10-25-2006, 06:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If there was no minimum buy-in (2)
I can think of two big DISADVANTAGES to being the shortie, one of which happened to me and one of which seems logical.
1. $1/2 NL at the Trop in AC. I have about $380; new guy sits down (one seat earlier than me) and buys in for $80. Villian picks up AQs in early pos, and raises to $10. I elect to smooth-call with AKo. Flop comes AJ7, with one of his suit. He leads out for $20, I raise to $50, and he reraises all-in (about $35 on top). Based on his aggressive play, I put him on AJ, but with $35 more into a $130 pot, there's no way I can fold here, where I probably would to a pot sized bet (especially if I knew I'd have to call additional bets on the turn and river). Here, his short-stacked state cost him the pot. 2. TT against AK, with TT the shortie. This is the oft-mentioned "coin flip," but one thing to consider: the more cards AK gets to see, the better the chance of catching up. If TT has the chips to get A high to lay down on the flop, he wins right there, including those hands he otherwise would have got sucked out on. If TT is so short, however, that he's all-in preflop, he gives AK an additional two cards to catch. Another disadvantage to being short-stacked.
|
|
#6
10-25-2006, 06:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If there was no minimum buy-in (2)
[ QUOTE ]
I can think of two big DISADVANTAGES to being the shortie, one of which happened to me and one of which seems logical. 1. $1/2 NL at the Trop in AC. I have about $380; new guy sits down (one seat earlier than me) and buys in for $80. Villian picks up AQs in early pos, and raises to $10. I elect to smooth-call with AKo. Flop comes AJ7, with one of his suit. He leads out for $20, I raise to $50, and he reraises all-in (about $35 on top). Based on his aggressive play, I put him on AJ, but with $35 more into a $130 pot, there's no way I can fold here, where I probably would to a pot sized bet (especially if I knew I'd have to call additional bets on the turn and river). Here, his short-stacked state cost him the pot. 2. TT against AK, with TT the shortie. This is the oft-mentioned "coin flip," but one thing to consider: the more cards AK gets to see, the better the chance of catching up. If TT has the chips to get A high to lay down on the flop, he wins right there, including those hands he otherwise would have got sucked out on. If TT is so short, however, that he's all-in preflop, he gives AK an additional two cards to catch. Another disadvantage to being short-stacked. [/ QUOTE ] Indeed. Essentially, short stack loses fold equity. The case of having only enough for one BB is an extreme example. You may think you'll get "full equity" (whatever that might mean) from your 92o, but you don't because you can't make J2o fold. You also don't necessarily want to get "full equity" from your trash hands - it would be more profitable to be able to fold them.
|
|
#7
10-25-2006, 07:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If there was no minimum buy-in (2)
my post flop skills are not very good, i'm prone to making big mistakes.... I am an excellent preflop player, I like bying in short (for the minimum amount allowed)... I do not think the OPTIMUM amount to buy in for would be higher than the minimum amount allowed,(definately not sure of that)
I know chris ferguson bought in short on a bunch of online games for a period of time, if anyone knows about this, did he buy in for the bare minimum????
|
|
#8
10-26-2006, 10:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If there was no minimum buy-in (2)
his equity would be maximized at about 25BB or so. he might want to buyin for 26.5 since you lose 1.5BB each rotation. so assuming he folds his first two hands, he'll have 25 BB on the button. if he is ever below the optimal amount (25 for the sake of argument) rebuy to the optimal amount after you fold/play your UTG hand. this way you never have to sit out. if you double up. leave, then come back later and buyin for the optimal amount again.
this isn't a mathematically rigorous solution obviously but the exact optimal solution would be pretty close to the one i outlined in nature.
|
|
#10
10-26-2006, 11:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: If there was no minimum buy-in (2)
[ QUOTE ]
Most games you have to buyin or about 30-40 Big blinds (LIVE GAMES)... How did you come up with 25BB.... Sounds like a good number to me. Just curious how you came up with it [/ QUOTE ] basically with 25 BB you don't have too few chips. you make enough with your good hands to compensate for posting blinds etc. and you have few enough chips that you can basically get allin every flop you play if you so choose (also you will probably be reraising allin preflop with your premium hands a fair amount). this means you don't have many, if any, postflop decisions. its becomes near push/fold/check postflop. which is a huge benefit for our hero as he is not the best postflop. this strategy is outlined in Ed miller's getting started in holdem. he endorses a short stack strategy for NL where you buyin for about 20-25BB and play ultra tight. if the game is fairly tight and solid. 25BB probably isn't going to cut it. this strategy would work best at a full table when everyone else has really deep stacks and they are playing loose and aggressive, particularly preflop. this is because these players will be raising implied odds hands like 98s and you aren't giving them any implied odds.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
