Buying in short?

[rodders133]

I recently deposited $200 on line, and planned to play with a strict bankroll management plan, following the guidelines of Chris Ferguson. This means my game should be NL10.
After buying in for the maximum I would plan to leave after doubling up to $20. However I found this extremely difficult as most other players at the table would buy in short, a lot for the minimum $2, so to double up I had to win a hell of a lot of small pots rather than stacking someone. After about 3 weeks, I was exactly even.
I decided to move up a level to NL20 but still invest 5% $10. Here, the majority of the table had me covered ( and the game seemed softer for some reason ), and I was able to double through and leave with my $20+ quite easily. In two days I built my roll to $300.
I understand this is probably due to a good run of cards and situations etc and I am under no illusions that i can make $50 a day.
My question is is it a good idea to buy in short or should I always buy in for the max, as Chris Ferguson recommends?

[Lego05]

I don't like buying in short as my advantage comes because of the more $ and the advantage my better playing yields since we play more streets being deeper. I also don't like automatically leaving a table once I double up...I may be very +ev at that table...so why would I want to leave?

[willyc]

Given the situation you describe I think buying in short is OK. Now that you have $300 buy in for $15 and see if you can get up to $500 more quickly and be fully rolled for NL25.

If you drop below $200 at any point I suggest going back to NL10 and trying really hard to find tables with more full stacks.

[genius55]

it depends... i'm not really qualified to answer authoratatively but buying in short cuts down your options on every street.