1/2 NL with 100 max buy in.

[JulioYalil]

[ QUOTE ]
[I'd just like to state that I have never doubted this is a profitable game to play. This is a question of if I WANT (for Entertainment) to play this game. Sitting and picking spots to go all in preflop or on the flop isn't really that fun for me.

I haven't seen anybody make a convincing argument that its FUN to play in these games.

Edit: Seriously, do people enjoy this? Why? It seems like theres just not a lot of skill involved besides knowing if you have an edge against a basic hand range of an opponent and pushing. ]


to me FUN @ poker is when i make money. so if ur description of how to beat this $100 max game is the only way to beat it (which it is not) that's fun to me. if u just wanna play loose, sip a couple of beers in btwn hands, and MAYBE make money at the same time while not truly carin about losin, then this $100 max should be perfect 4 u anyways b/c u can play as crazy as half the people play on it and not lose that much money if u get unlucky or misplay a hand. if that's what u wanna do then i recommend u don't even buy for the full 50 BBs, prolly 30-40 BBs will be enough so u can buy back in a couple of times w/out riskin too much money.

[chillywater8]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I called myself "slightly below average" because that is the overall level of player I believe I am. I have very few doubts I can continue to make 10-15+ at 1/2 NL 100 max Live in South FL and as I improve perhaps more. I am a winning 25NL player(75k hands) and a losing 50NL player(5k hands)(on pokerstars 6max) also a loser at MTT's overall, this is where I base my opinion of my level of play. [img]/images/graemlins/crazy.gif[/img]
My stratagy is play pretty nitty, I limp alot on BTN and CO with hands like 79s 89os J7s, I try to limp with any pair 88 and under in most spots and look for a set. I bet big pairs heavy enough to not give any sets odds at all to the callers(while i'm at my 100 stack). I play AK, AQ, AJ suited or not, KQs 99 TT very carefully, I do not overplay these cards OOP. Once I stack up to 200+ I try to play a more TAG game, but forget stealing blinds 95% of the time, because they will call.

[AKQJ10]

[ QUOTE ]
This should be good. Please explain how to "punish" a $100 stack with a $300 stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, it's great to know that you can leave for six months and come back and absolutely nothing will have changed. Still the same dull short stack debates. Of course jeffnc or whoever said that the deep stacks have no inherent advantage are right. Paste in Ed Miller quote here.

Of course, if you like playing this sort of poker, you can beat these games over time. GSIHE tells how in great detail. You can improvise a bit if you're better than a beginner, e.g. be the fourth cold-caller of $10 on the button with 33 and $100 stacks. But the basic GSIHE approach will still work. I've done it at Foxwoods to build up bankroll and it works like a charm.

None of this has to do with the OP's question. Yes, short-stacking is boring poker. If, like me, you enjoy B&M poker for the sights and sounds and meeting people and talking to dealers, then you may not care that you're folding 95% of hands instead of 80% of them. If, like me, you enjoy thinking deeply about preflop play even though it's a much simpler part of hold 'em than postflop paly, you may enjoy yourself in the $100 game.

If not, if you simply must play a bunch of hands or get bored, then try the lowest limit HE game instead. You may be at a slight disadvantage against a GOOD LHE player, but there aren't many in these games. Meanwhile your 55 or 76s is just as viable in a 7-way raised pot as it is in a deep-stack raised NLHE pot. Your implied odds are coming from the mass of opponents, not from one deep stack, but it's still the same principle with some modifications. You might even discover that you enjoy LHE as well as NLHE.

[ThaHero]

[ QUOTE ]
In my experience, it is very effective to buy-short in these 100 max games.

With the max initial buyin being so low (100), I've found that people tend to play rather loose, despite the size of their stack. As a shortstack, I sit back and wait for the hand where I catch KK or AA with good position, and push a good amount forward, enough to cause a gulp from the next 2-3 (who usually have 5-8 chips previously committed to the main. I can see their consternation as they debate just calling (and risking the bigstacks coming in behind to push them all in) or welcome their all-in as they attempt isolation- which is good for my hand too.

Often I can pick up a sizeable main pot with heads-up or at most 3-way action this way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, I'd just rather buy in full. I rarely have problems getting action with KK or AA. Most flops are already multi-way at this level. You're already short as is, why purposely make yourself shorter? I think this leaves value on the table.

Good post AK,

If playing post flop is how OP derives fun then maybe a low limit FL game is best. There will be so many callers you always have odds to draw and with many opponents plenty post flop concepts come into play as well that getting all-in on the flop wouldn't have(obv).

It's pretty apparent OP isn't going for the social aspect I think. If that were the case then the cards wouldn't matter at all.

[GinaSD]

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, I'd just rather buy in full. I rarely have problems getting action with KK or AA. Most flops are already multi-way at this level. You're already short as is, why purposely make yourself shorter? I think this leaves value on the table.


[/ QUOTE ]
I play on a very limited bankroll (no more than 400/month- and all of my poker profits - as well as the 400 when left go toward paying off my car/old student loans, each month starts fresh). On nights where I have maybe 2 buy-ins total cash on me (200), I find this a very conservative, yet effective way to play. I may not get the EV I'd get with the full buyin, but I am still putting my money in when I am ahead- and sheltering my poker$ from wild swings.

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This should be good. Please explain how to "punish" a $100 stack with a $300 stack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, it's great to know that you can leave for six months and come back and absolutely nothing will have changed. Still the same dull short stack debates. Of course jeffnc or whoever said that the deep stacks have no inherent advantage are right. Paste in Ed Miller quote here.

Of course, if you like playing this sort of poker, you can beat these games over time. GSIHE tells how in great detail. You can improvise a bit if you're better than a beginner, e.g. be the fourth cold-caller of $10 on the button with 33 and $100 stacks. But the basic GSIHE approach will still work. I've done it at Foxwoods to build up bankroll and it works like a charm.

None of this has to do with the OP's question. Yes, short-stacking is boring poker. If, like me, you enjoy B&M poker for the sights and sounds and meeting people and talking to dealers, then you may not care that you're folding 95% of hands instead of 80% of them. If, like me, you enjoy thinking deeply about preflop play even though it's a much simpler part of hold 'em than postflop paly, you may enjoy yourself in the $100 game.

If not, if you simply must play a bunch of hands or get bored, then try the lowest limit HE game instead. You may be at a slight disadvantage against a GOOD LHE player, but there aren't many in these games. Meanwhile your 55 or 76s is just as viable in a 7-way raised pot as it is in a deep-stack raised NLHE pot. Your implied odds are coming from the mass of opponents, not from one deep stack, but it's still the same principle with some modifications. You might even discover that you enjoy LHE as well as NLHE.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've actually just started playing no limit, after playing limit exclusively live. I enjoy limit and I may stop and play that instead, but since I started playing no limit a month or so again thats what I'm focusing on. Its fresh, different, and learning a lot.

I mostly enjoy poker because I like being good at it. I like competing against other people and winning. I like that the most when my skill is more then just knowing when to shove it all in preflop, or on the flop. I like having to make big decisions.

I never use to enjoy the poker atmosphere at casinos. I found most people [censored] bitter, annoying, bitter, whiny, bitter, and grumpy. Ever since I've started playing no limit though I've enjoyed the company a lot more. No Limit tables are WAY more fun then limit tables.

Anyway, good to see that you're back. Nobody's posted a link to the poker wiki for a couple of months. [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Wyman]

One caution about these very soft games:

Sometimes (Greektown in Detroit, for instance), in these small buyin games, you aren't allowed to rebuy until you bust. It can be the most painful experience to get it in and lose to a shorter stack and wind up with a $30 stack that you can't buy back up. (Sorry if this was mentioned, I just skimmed the replies.)

[jjshabado]

[ QUOTE ]
One caution about these very soft games:

Sometimes (Greektown in Detroit, for instance), in these small buyin games, you aren't allowed to rebuy until you bust. It can be the most painful experience to get it in and lose to a shorter stack and wind up with a $30 stack that you can't buy back up. (Sorry if this was mentioned, I just skimmed the replies.)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think thats the case at Niagara Falls. I believe you can top up to 100 at any point.

[Pov]

[ QUOTE ]

I mostly enjoy poker because I like being good at it.


[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

I like having to make big decisions.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're doomed to be disappointed one way or the other.

[facepull]

if i chose to play short stack style i really really doubt you could punish me unless you get major lucky. you never really explained yet how you punish these short stacks yet. also you were the first to insult another poster. i guess you csant take down the same medicine.