how much to buy in for?

[shirze]

I'm making the transition from limit to NL, currently playing NL25 at party. I've read a few books, done lots of reading here, but have only played a few thousand hands so far. i started by buying in 20bb (miller's short stack strategy) but felt i wasn't really learning how to play. but i don't know how much to buy in for. some posts here advise buying in for the max but i'm afraid of burning through my bankroll before i learn the ropes. but i also dont want to buy in for too little and not have the chips to play all the streets properly.
any advice? thanks!

[Dogballs88]

I'd just buy in for the whole 100bb, that is, $25. There's nothing wrong per se with employing a short stack game starting out, but as you pointed out you aren't learning all you can. If "buring through your bankroll" is an issue, there are games lower than $25 NL. Stars and UB have games as low as $2. If you don't have at least $500, you really should not be playing $25 NL.

You're going to stack off a lot while learning the ropes - that just the way it goes. Better to have enough money that you're aren't thinking about it in $ terms.

[Texibus]

Well, if you feel like you can beat the layers in the game straight up and seems like you're going to need some betting go with the max buyin. On the other hand if you feel like you're going to need to just push when you think you have a strong hand I'd say go with the like partial buy in of 10 or 15 dollars, the more uncomfortable you are witht he table the less you should buy in for.

[Texibus]

You can play you can play 25 with way less than the 25 buy ins he's suggesting. It's all about a comfort thing, if you think you're crushing these guys when you sit down 10 is fine. I played 10 buyins all the way up till i got to 200nl max.

[Bonusweary]

The problem with not buying in for a full stack is that you are learning to play without one - and a big chunk of your profit flies out the window - if you are concerned, play 10NL and buy in full. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[UATrewqaz]

When you buy in short you'll never learn to play NL... the shortstack strategy is very robotic, but will usually yield a very slow dribble of profit.

I think it's best to do (as books have advisted) when you are new to a game. If you are playing high stakes and want to get a "feel" for the table you can play 3-4 orbits as a shortstack to keep yourself "safe" while you assess things, then you just buy in full.

However at NL25 this probably wouldn't be that beneficial, as you'll have many people playing loose/bad and it won't be hard to find a good game.

Also, while not against the rules, many people find shortstackers very annoying. I'm not really a NL cash player by trade though.

[Splossy]

Short stackers are annoying because it’s easy to confuse them with very poor players who start with a small stack since they lost their money and go all in with stupid hands.

I’m not sure how using that strategy is going to help learn the game properly. I’m in the same boat as the OP – transitioning from limit to NL. I’ve found I’ve lost a fair bit of bankroll because I’ve ended up getting in large pots or all-ins and losing. Most of them I’ve had the better hand but lost anyway but some of them I’ve had great hands but 2nd best ones KK against AA etc. And some of them were just plain stupid. But on the plus side I’ve learned a fair bit about betting patterns, bet sizes, aggression, observing players, stealing etc. I find at the micros I will gain steadily for a while but then lose a heap. So I’ve just taken the view of not getting into really risky situations without a really monster hand. OK so I lose the odd pot to aggressive moves but gain overall by targeting weaker players, stealing, semibluffing and of course hitting sets etc. I’m watching out for players and situations where I’m overbetting and trapping myself without a suitably strong hand.

What I’m trying to say is that I think you can formulate a beginners strategy that doesn’t risk your bankroll by playing at the lowest limits, playing tightish poker until you get a read of the table and then using your tight image for stealing blinds etc, raising limpers, isolating poor players, avoiding good players esp out of position etc and avoiding all-ins without the nuts.

But then I don’t really know what I’m talking about.

[anteupcowboy]

always buy in for the max online never know what could happen

[specultr]

Barry Greenstein advocates buying in short because it controls losses and opponents play looser against short stacks. Short stacks can't do as much damage to a big stack so they will call your all-ins. Overbet your big hands with a small stack, and you'll probably get paid off. Of course, if you're the best player at the table, you're losing money by playing short.

[Perk76]

Learning the NL game for me became easier once I started buyin full. I started at AP where max was 50.00 for nl25, and minimum was 10.00. I always bought in for 10.00, and could never figure out why I was struggling. Good sessions, you get hit in the deck, and someone doubles ya, maybe once or twice, then bam a large stack gets it all. Or starting with 10.00 you chip down the least little bit, and wonder why you get sucked out on when your AA gets cracked. The shorter your stack, the higher the probability a large stack will say, ok, I will gamble and call you even if they know they are behind. They know they are only gonna lose a small portion if they are wrong, so its easier to gamble or pick your spots against short stack players.

Buyin in full has alot of advantages:
1. You maximize your potential earnings on any given hand
2. Wont automatically be looked at as a target by other players. Your play will determine that.
3. Dont have to rush into any hands, since losing 2 - 3 dollars in blinds isnt terrible. (yet if your a 10.00 buyin, 2 - 3 is alot).
4. You can pick who you want to get in hands against.