The traditional short answer is to always cover the table if you are the best player in the game. However in practice this is MUCH easier said than done...
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashley12
So the question I ask is this, should I absolutely be always buying in for the maximum in these type of games. I consider myself usually to be one of if not the best player in the game, and provided I have no bankroll or other issues, should I always be buying in for the max. I personally do, but a number of other good players are buying in for 100-150 for a number of reasons.
There are a number of things that will influence my depth buying into a uncapped game.
With any luck at all I have had the chance to scout the game and get a good feel for the dynamics and the players. With lots of information I will typically cover the best player I feel I have a competitive edge on.
I will have to take stock of my mental state at the time too. Some days I just want to "take it easy", others I want to "go pedal to the metal". When I am in the take it easy state of mind I am rarely coming in deep, and will generally come in for more or less the table average. If I am in the pedal to the metal mode, I am covering the table.
More than once I have been in a situation where a known fish was in the game, would freak out if someone "targeted" him. He thinks if someone covers him when sitting down they are "targeting" him. When he feels targeted he tends to rack up and leave.
There are also situations where buying in deep will scare fish. Sometimes its better to not get too carried away with chips in these situations. The last thing you want is for the new fishy at the game to be too scared to play against you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ashley12
Basically, in these types of games, low limit, low "quality" NL games, what do you buy in for, and does this change for Omaha, if you think you are more of a dog based on the game, your second or third buyin if you manage to bust the first, etc??
Cheers
Ash
With regards to game, I will also take into consideration the variance associated with that game in addition to everything else, e.g. PLO vs NL. Generally in a higher variance game I am more willing to rebuy. I am also more likely to misinterpret my edge and to incorrectly evaluate my play as being "good". Kind of walking the razor's edge here...
If I bust a buyin I am generally locking up my seat and taking a quick break to try to objectively evaluate my play up to that point. Some days you maybe the best player in the game, but you are not playing your game, and its time to leave... or buyin for a smaller stack.