Buying in for less...

[lilsewon]

I am definitey more prone to call big bets from a shortstack than a full stack b/c you don't have to risk as much to get to showdown, and I think other people are as well. I was wondering if it might be better to buy-in for 50 at a NL100 tables than to buy in for 50 at a 50NL table. Would it be more profitable because people are more prone/suspicious to call smaller amounts of money? Or am I way off base here? I wuz just thinkin...

[jkkkk]

If you play properly your EV will be highest with deeper stacks against the bad players, and there are lots of bad players at both 50 and 100. 100BB > 50BB.

[CappyAA]

Nooooooooo - You make a point here but what happens when you buy in and you flop a set early against someone willing to stack you? I'd rather buy in for a full stack...that way if I stack up, I'll make more money.

[EchoTek]

probably more off base than anything. I think if you are a decent player, you want all the money you can have. Nothing more annoying than getting the nuts against the 2nd nuts or something strong and only making 50bbs instead of 100.
oh yeah, and dont just call people because they have small stacks [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Pokey]

I think OP's message is that a 30BB bet from someone with 30BBs in their stack is less scary to call than a 30BB bet from someone with 80BBs in their stack. Thus, the point is that a small stack could get reasonably large wins more often than a large stack.

I think the point applies only to the very good players; I don't think the donks really care either way, because they don't pay attention. Since the vast majority of your money comes from the donks, you might as well have as much ammunition as you can get.

[ajmargarine]

[ QUOTE ]

Since the vast majority of your money comes from the donks, you might as well have as much ammunition as you can get.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're getting pretty smart (for a fish). [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]