buying in short, middle, full

[dynacraze]

I was playing in a low NL table and i noticed one of the players say its best to buy in for 50BB's because you get to stack the weaker players whether they buyin short, middle or full.

He said also that if you lose your stack to a better player who full buy ins, you lose only half your buyin. I also agree with players opinion b/c if you buy in for 50BBs, you only lose half of it when your AA runs into a set. You only get half of a buyin if you stack your opp with a set. However, you do limit your losses, but limit your profits.

Does this players belief make it that buying in for 50BB is the most profitable against any group of players?

I tried doing the short stack strategy of 20BBs and personally hate it b/c i keep getting blinded out.

[tgo007]

I think it depends. If you aren't a very good player then buying in short is the best option. Buying in 50bb plays similar to 20bb in my opinion (still tight) except you need to play a lot more careful post flop which if done correctly is better than 20BB short stacking but of course you have to deal with more difficult decisions. If you are an excellent player and you are able to adjust to the different stack sizes and can play post flop then buying full is the best. I honestly believe very few players can play full stack. Many people will try it and they might still win, but they would be even better off buying in for 50bb.

[dynacraze]

It seems that the only way to play a big pot full ring to your advantage is only hold the nut hands like AKs for flush and 88 for sets or hands like 98 and 65s to make straights against people's AA or KK.

It's like I want more money in the table when i hold any pocket pair but less when i hold AK when flop an ace or king. I also heard of nits that keeps pots small with AA kk and Aq and even folds it when they get raised on flops with something like A 8 4. If i play that NITTY, can i be profitable?

[Taso]

Gotta wonder why we constantly see Barry "lol Donkaments" Greenstein buying in for the minimum on HSP and Live at the Bike...Maybe just because he's not playing his real game? Although, he did recommend that during the commentary.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
Gotta wonder why we constantly see Barry "lol Donkaments" Greenstein buying in for the minimum on HSP...

[/ QUOTE ]

What's the minimum? 300/600 blinds -- he buys in for $100k, right? That's 167 BB. Seems like a full buy-in to me. It's the short-stack at the table, though, since some people buy in for $1M. But still plenty in relation to the blinds, right?

[Taso]

Yeah, actually, I was thinking just of season 2, but I'm not 100% he did buy short in season 2, I think he did, but he could have just lost a big pot...I'm not sure. But on Live at the bike he buys in for the minimum, and advocates doing that at tables.

[KipBond]

[ QUOTE ]
But on Live at the bike he buys in for the minimum, and advocates doing that at tables.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. I don't get that.

[Taso]

No tough decisions I guess...

[jjflash]

[ QUOTE ]
Gotta wonder why we constantly see Barry "lol Donkaments" Greenstein buying in for the minimum on HSP and Live at the Bike...Maybe just because he's not playing his real game? Although, he did recommend that during the commentary.

[/ QUOTE ]

In Barry's book, he comments on the fact that he likes to buy in short. I sent him an email asking him some questions on it. He more or less said that he likes short play because it makes the decisions easier. Also, he said that being a good player, he can figure out what everyone else is doing before they figure out what he is doing. He still has enough ammo to put people to a decision, but limits his losses on the suck outs.

[lamboruns]

at my home game i buy in short a lot..because the donks will bad beat me enough i dont want it to be for a big stack...and i usually triple it in a matter of a few orbits so doesnt matter...its a donk fest...like stocks...buy in low..cash out high