Short-Buying ???????

jerome22 · #1 04-17-2007, 07:05 AM

I saw this post somewhere the other day about buying in short and how Barry Greenstien backs this stupid notion. I am curious what people think and I thought I would express my opinion on this topic.
Obviously this applies to NLHE at any level. I personally play 2-5NL and 5-10NL at B&M's. (useless bs info)

I don't think there should be a certain percentage or amount of money relative to the BB that you should buy in for everytime. Maybe for the average/weak player buying in for the same percentage is the correct thing to do in order to learn the game and limit loses. But in my opinion, being a good player, I buy in for the average amount of chips at the table. Before I decide how much to buy in for, I survey the table that I am about to sit down at. I then decide what an average chip stack at this table is and buy in for that amount. The reason being is that if I am in a confrontation where I think a person is drawing and I know I have the best hand. I need enough chips to bet to get him off the hand. Obviously if this game deep stacked and the buy-in is capped. I will buy in for the max. If the game is not capped and I know the players well, I will buy in for as much as the big stack at the table. That way there is nobody at the table that I am scared to get into a big hand with because thier chips will be at risk too. You have to make people pay for thier draws. And you can't do that without a decent stack. Why would you want to limit your playing ability by only having 20bb's at the start of the hand. Its already 3-5bb's to see the flop. If four people see the flop and you hit, with a lot of draws, you have to go all in right away just to have anybody think about folding to you. And chances are somebody is going to call with a draw because they will have enough odds to call. More than likely more then one person will call after that person does and then you might as well have walked to the table and handed everybody money instead of even playing. Also if you are in a hand where you are drawing, having more money on the table gives better implied odds for you to draw out because you will make more money and get payed off if you hit your hand. There is no reason that people should be short-buying into a game in hopes of not losing a big pot. Thats just retarded and weak. Grow some balls and play poker to the best of your ability. Cooler hands come every so often and there is nothing that you can do about it. Even the best players in the world will loss all thier chips in some situations. Ex. Negreanu and Hansen 66 vs 55 on High Stakes Poker. Anybody that even thinks about laying down Negreanu's hand is a bad player in the long-run. The percentage of these hands happening in relation to the hands you win is very very small. Having losing pots and losing sessions is part of the game. Do not buy in short because your scared of losing a big pot. Rather buy in for the amount you feel neccessary to beat the game at the table.

Gonso · #2 04-17-2007, 08:20 AM

[Cliff's Notes: Smerfkilla is a good live B&M player who thinks you should never buy in short. He wants you to grow some balls and play poker to the best of your ability.]

Gonso · #3 04-17-2007, 08:25 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you want to limit your playing ability by only having 20bb's at the start of the hand. Its already 3-5bb's to see the flop. If four people see the flop and you hit, with a lot of draws, you have to go all in right away just to have anybody think about folding to you. And chances are somebody is going to call with a draw because they will have enough odds to call. More than likely more then one person will call after that person does and then you might as well have walked to the table and handed everybody money instead of even playing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Short stack strategy plays to all of these conditions! You don't speculate very much in the first place, you play a super-tight game and just get it in there with strong hands. And if I get it with the best hand, I don't care how many people call, even if my edge is only a slight one.

Miller's GSIHE covers this pretty well even if it is a very nitty and lame approach. Barry G. on the other hand was referring to buying in short when you first sit down to acclimate to the game.

augie_ · #4 04-17-2007, 03:18 PM

you shouldn't hate short buyins until you understand them first

Zim · #5 04-18-2007, 06:59 PM

Miller's GSIHE covers this pretty well even if it is a very nitty and lame approach. Barry G. on the other hand was referring to buying in short when you first sit down to acclimate to the game.

Hmm ... I'm not sure about that. Here's a Barry G. quote on just this topic:

-------------------------------------

If you allowed a break-even player to buy in for one-fourth the normal minimum, he would easily be come a winning player, whether in limit or no-limit. The times that pots would be won because of being all-in would far outweight the times that an opponent could be bet out of a pot.

Try buying in as short as you are allowed. If you are allowed a short buy-in after a full buy-in, do it. If you try it for a while, this thread will become moot.

I gave the exceptions, the most noteworthy being that you are much better than your opponents. This is not the case for most of us, including me. Most of us, even the winners, are only marginally better than the opponents we play against. But with this and other management advice, and advice on how to think through a poker hand, many people who have read my book have become much more significant winners than they previously were.

I get several e-mails a day thanking me. It's funny that this thread would be here, since the most significant improvement in their management that readers have mentioned is this one.

I guess it's irrelevant for all of you who are so much better than your opponents and are always on the winning end of cold-decks so you need to have a lot of money in front of you at all times. And since none of you ever steam when you lose, you don't need to worry about having a lot of chips in front of you when you are losing.

Barry

edit: Just noticed "one fourth the normal minimum", I suspect he meant to say one fourth the normal buy in (maximum?) ... but perhaps someone else can verify this.

Barry, you out there?

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Gonso · #6 04-18-2007, 08:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Hmm ... I'm not sure about that. Here's a Barry G. quote on just this topic

[/ QUOTE ]
I didn't see that post, I was referring to Barry's book. In any case, it's still correct & gels with Miller's POV

[ QUOTE ]
If you allowed a break-even player to buy in for one-fourth the normal minimum, he would easily be come a winning player, whether in limit or no-limit. The times that pots would be won because of being all-in would far outweight the times that an opponent could be bet out of a pot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Short but to the point - I still recommend GSIHE for a more complete treatment though.

sh58 · #7 04-20-2007, 06:34 AM

having a short stack means people can't draw out on you because they have no implied odds, you mentioned implied odds in your favour but not against you. people will call your 10bb flop bet if they can win 100bb if they hit. if the pot has 10bb and the short stack goes all in for 10bb they can't call with +ev.

i agree with buying in for the max, but your argument sucks