|
|
#21
06-14-2006, 11:05 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: buying in short to play at higher levels
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] what about the losses when you would have taken a larger hit?? [/ QUOTE ] according to your theory you rarely take a hit right? [/ QUOTE ] when did I say this??? First, let's remember the OP is talking about 1/2 but-ins when moving up....not as a long term strategy. Second, FOR ME, I am more confortable playing a very tight and agressive short stack when moving up...if for no other reason than to run into a large stack gambling with a marginal hand because he/she thinks they have a chip stack advantage...if I'm in the hand with a short stack to begin with you better believe there is better than average chance that I have the nuts or pretty darn close to it... [/ QUOTE ] Maybe you guys missed it in my OP, which is very possible. I'm refering to playing 1/2 buy ins at a level ONLY BECAUSE i would be underrolled for buying in full. In other words, could you could make more $/100 hands buying in for 200x at 2x/4x blinds then buying in for 200x at x/2x blinds. This is assuming the conditions I've mentioned in my earlier posts. 
|
|
#22
06-14-2006, 11:09 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: buying in short to play at higher levels
im not being a douche. sorry if i came accross like this.
you comment that I called retarded is retarded. your question is impossible to answer and is completely philosophically based. it doesnt belong here and it sounds like your just trying to play devils advocate. its very easy to bully someone. thats half the point of NL. think about it. you have 100 bb. villian has 1000bb. You raise to 4 bb preflop. villian calls. you bet the flop, villian puts you all in. now your calling only with your best hands and have to fold everything else. how do you play against that? you play tight, only putting money in with premium hands. he knows this and folds. you wont win any money from him and you will lose everytime you dont have a premium hand. hes willing to do this because your full stack is only 10% of his stack. he has complete control.
|
|
#23
06-14-2006, 11:20 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: buying in short to play at higher levels
[ QUOTE ]
you comment that called retarded is retarded. your question is impossible to answer and is completely philosophically based. it doesnt belong here and it sounds like your just trying to play devils advocate. [/ QUOTE ] This is a perfectly reasonable philosophical question about the difference between playing deep or short. [ QUOTE ] its very easy to bully someone. thats half the point of NL. think about it. you have 100 bb. villian has 1000bb. You raise to 4 bb preflop. villian calls. you bet the flop, villian puts you all in. now your calling only with your best hands and have to fold everything else. how do you play against that? you play tight, only putting money in with premium hands. he knows this and folds. you wont win any money from him and you will lose everytime you dont have a premium hand. [/ QUOTE ] I can play perfectly against this strategy because I call your push when I am good and fold all my bad hands. The bully playing like this allows their opponent to effectively play perfectly. The bully can't fold when he has a bad hand because he already put me all in. [ QUOTE ] hes willing to do this because your full stack is only 10% of his stack. he has complete control. [/ QUOTE ] This is the way that short stacks are successful. Villains like you that think just becasue they bought in short, they can't win. Nothing better than buying in short and watching player after player call you with crap against you premium hands, just to try to "show you whose boss" As for OP, I think it reasonable to buy in short when trying to move up. When you are moving up, you are not as likely to have the edge that you carried in the smaller games. This is a good method to introduce yourself to higher stakes, while somewhat limiting your risk. It is also great for clearing bonuses depending on where you play.
|
|
#24
06-14-2006, 11:26 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: buying in short to play at higher levels
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] you comment that called retarded is retarded. your question is impossible to answer and is completely philosophically based. it doesnt belong here and it sounds like your just trying to play devils advocate. [/ QUOTE ] This is a perfectly reasonable philosophical question about the difference between playing deep or short. [/ QUOTE ] your taking my statment out of context, im refering to this statement: [ QUOTE ] Yes but isn't this the norm because casinos and most online rooms place it at such? If there was no cap would 100 bbs remain the standard buy in? [/ QUOTE ] its a completely unanswerable question. and your right, you can play perfectly against the bully. But you get premium hands a lot less often then [censored] cards. therefore the bullying approach works.
|
|
#25
06-14-2006, 11:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: buying in short to play at higher levels
[ QUOTE ]
im not being a douche. but i can be if you want? you comment that called retarded is retarded. [/ QUOTE ] I think you're contradicting yourself here, but I'll give you benifit of the doubt. [ QUOTE ] your question is impossible to answer and is completely philosophically based. it doesnt belong here and it sounds like your just trying to play devils advocate. [/ QUOTE ] Perhaps I explained what I said wrong. Let's take this. When playing on absolute poker, you can buy in for 200 bbs. If this was the norm at party (or wherever you play), would you personally only play at a level at which you had 20-25 (or whatever amount of buy ins you feel comfy with) max buy ins, or would you continue buying in for 100 bbs? Why or why not? If it depends what does it depend on? I guess in a way im being devils advocate, but I'm doing this for a reason, not just to be a contrarion on an internet message board. [ QUOTE ] its very easy to bully someone. thats half the point of NL. think about it. you have 100 bb. villian has 1000bb. You raise to 4 bb preflop. villian calls. you bet the flop, villian puts you all in. now your calling only with your best hands and have to fold everything else. how do you play against that? you play tight, only putting money in with premium hands. he knows this and folds. you wont win any money from him and you will lose everytime you dont have a premium hand. [/ QUOTE ] Obviously what you call with has to do with how often he makes the move, and what he's turned over when he does it. For instance if he dos this every single time you cbet with position then this strategy is very very easily exploitable. Even if he randomizes this you only have to have a hand worth calling with every once in a while since you profit 100 bbs and currently invested 4bbs + a cbet. Not to mention that there is still no difference between you each having 100 bbs each, since if it's onl you two playing, that's all either person can lose. [ QUOTE ] hes willing to do this because your full stack is only 10% of his stack. he has complete control. [/ QUOTE ] Why does it matter how much of his stack he's losing? He still loses the same amount whether he buys in for 100 bbs, 1000, or 10^26 bbs.
|
|
#27
06-14-2006, 11:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: buying in short to play at higher levels
[ QUOTE ]
grunch NO. [/ QUOTE ] i should have stuck with this.
|
|
#28
06-14-2006, 11:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: buying in short to play at higher levels
some of the advice in this thread ranges from terrible to flat out wrong.....perhaps Matt, Ed, and I need to address some of these oft-debated ideas in detail in the SSNLHE book.....
there is absolutely no inherent disadvantage to having a small stack in a NL cash game.....there are stylistic differences in playing different stack sizes profitably, and depending on table makeup/tendencies and individual skill, it may be MORE profitable to play one stack size over another......however, you are never at a disadvantage purely because of your stack size...... this myth of being "bullied" is just that - a myth....many high stakes NL players learned the game and built their bankrolls by buying in shorter than normal in various games.....I personally have on occasion - for various reasons - purposely bought into games shorter than the average stack because I thought it was a big advantage.... the key is knowing how to play different stack sizes, and why you are playing them...... I'll try to answer a few of the OP's original questions.... [ QUOTE ] Basically, the question is this, assuming a $500 br and a player that is a proven winner at both $25NL and $50NL, which is better? [/ QUOTE ] there is no general "better", it depends on you and the games..... [ QUOTE ] scenario A-Buy in for 100 BBs at $25NL, giving yourself 20 buy ins Scenario B-Buy in for 50 BBs at $50NL, giving yourself still a healthy 20 buy ins. [/ QUOTE ] the good thing is that it sounds like you have a decent bankroll for either situation..... [ QUOTE ] Assuming a winning player, 1)how much edge in PTBBs/100 hands are you giving up by only buying in or 50BBs as opposed to 100? [/ QUOTE ] hard to say exactly without knowing exactly how those specific games play.....you might not be giving up any edge.....you might make more by playing a 50bb stack at a higher limit.....you might make less.... [ QUOTE ] 2)how is variance affected by this? [/ QUOTE ] your variance will probably be higher playing a 50bb stack....you will (hopefully) be playing tighter - so that does help reduce variance - but bottom line is that you will often be getting all the money in on earlier streets in spots where you might be a healthy favorite but people can catch up.....but more variance shouldn't matter to you if your net earn is more - 20 buyins should be enough to handle the swings...... [ QUOTE ] 3)why is the max comonly referred to as the norm buy in online? If it was common for NL games to have no cap, what would it make sense to buy in for (again, assuming a decent edge in that game). In other words where's the cut off point where you decide it's better to buy in for half the BBs at double the stakes? I have a feeling it in large part it has to do with what the others at the table are buying in for. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not exactly sure what you're asking here.....I don't know how 100bb's became the norm maximum for online capped-buyin games - personally I think it's arbitrary and stupid.....and deciding what to buy in for in an uncapped game might have something to do with how much others are buying in for, but also what type of players there are and where you perceive your edge to be......
|
|
#29
06-14-2006, 11:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: buying in short to play at higher levels
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I explained what I said wrong. Let's take this. When playing on absolute poker, you can buy in for 200 bbs. If this was the norm at party (or wherever you play), would you personally only play at a level at which you had 20-25 (or whatever amount of buy ins you feel comfy with) max buy ins, or would you continue buying in for 100 bbs? Why or why not? If it depends what does it depend on? I guess in a way im being devils advocate, but I'm doing this for a reason, not just to be a contrarion on an internet message board. [/ QUOTE ] as stated in my other post. im referring to you comment about why people buy in for 100bbs if it werent a poker room rule. [ QUOTE ] Obviously what you call with has to do with how often he makes the move, and what he's turned over when he does it. For instance if he dos this every single time you cbet with position then this strategy is very very easily exploitable. Even if he randomizes this you only have to have a hand worth calling with every once in a while since you profit 100 bbs and currently invested 4bbs + a cbet. Not to mention that there is still no difference between you each having 100 bbs each, since if it's onl you two playing, that's all either person can lose. [/ QUOTE ] your right. but if hes a thinking player at all you will be at a disadvantage. you wont be able to play draws anymore. you will be laying down TP a lot more often. you will be sitting waiitng for premium hands. Also, he wont be doing it every hand like a maniac. hell wait for weak/tights to raise, and then hell call. and then maybe youll CB. and hell call. And then a scary turn card comes. and hell put you all in and youll know that a turn raise means your beat and youll have to fold. And he can do it riskingy a lot less than you. you wont call with out odds. and he controls the odds. [ QUOTE ] Why does it matter how much of his stack he's losing? He still loses the same amount whether he buys in for 100 bbs, 1000, or 10^26 bbs. [/ QUOTE ] its a psychology thing. villians are more willing to gamble when ur facing them with pocket change bets. thats why when you drop limits you have to be careful of your mindset. a NL2k player who drops down to NL25 is playing with pocket change. and is constantly raising all in and gambling. does this make sense?
|
|
#30
06-14-2006, 11:41 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: buying in short to play at higher levels
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps I explained what I said wrong. Let's take this. When playing on absolute poker, you can buy in for 200 bbs. If this was the norm at party (or wherever you play), would you personally only play at a level at which you had 20-25 (or whatever amount of buy ins you feel comfy with) max buy ins, or would you continue buying in for 100 bbs? Why or why not? If it depends what does it depend on? [/ QUOTE ] The answer to this, i think, is you would buy in for the full 200BB's at the level for which you were properly rolled. When you feel you have an edge, it is usually not advisable to buy in for less than the max, because you are just limiting the amount you can win. And playing with good bankroll management is one of the basic skills taught here at SSNL.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
