I have read some random posts here and there about how much people buy in with in big bet games where the buy-in isnt at a fixed rate.

A few years ago the buy-in for 2/3 NL in my local casino was fixed at $100 with a rake 10% capped at $8 Australian, with no tipping or time charge. Since then, the game has morphed at various stages into a 10% capped at $10 game, with a buyin ranging from $200 to as low as $50, or from roughly about 67BB to 17BB.

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.

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

Always buy in full or at least have more than Villain(s). You want to be able to maximize profits.

This.

Here's one article I read recently on the short buy:
http://www.pokerlistings.com/strateg...ort-buy-part-1

Ridiculously aggressive tables and implied odds are the only reasons to consider the short buy. But this really only applies at a table with no max, which yours isn't.

People are always buying in short of the max at the small to mid stakes tables. I find that they use a gamblers rationalization for it instead of any kind of solid poker theory. i.e. "I can't lose what I don't put on the table."

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...

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.

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.

Well, yes, but on 2+2 it's just not acceptable to admit that you might be the 2nd or 3rd-best player at the table.

OP, you should consider:

• Your edge versus each individual opponent
• Each opponent's stack size
• Your own bankroll
• Your own "psychological bankroll"

If none of those factors militates against it, follow Percula's advice and buy in to cover every player against whom you have an edge. (Generally stay out of large pots against players who have an edge on you, although there are obvious exceptions.)

And more that are unwilling to admit that while they maybe the best player in the game (arguable always) they are not playing their best game. There is nothing fishier than a shark that is playing bad.

It's important to know who you're "going after" when you sit down at a table and choose your buy in accordingly, imo.

For example, if you sit down and most of the fish have 100-200 dollars in front of them but there's a few sharks with 1,000+, there's no reason at all to buy in for more than 200.


I'd say it depends entirely on the game. For example, one game I've played in, I've noticed recently that people seem less likely to want to tangle with "big stacks." If I sit with $100-$200 in a 1-2 game, I get plenty of action. If I sit with $500+, people play really conservatively.

* shrug *

If I don't know anyone I buy in for ~60-70bb and chill a bit, figure out the table. Then rebuy bigger if I figure I have an edge. (usually play deep games)

Hate playing short stack poker fwiw, but hate getting stuck big early more than anything.

This is actually a pretty common case in Tunica. I have fond memories of a whale who brought in an orange $1000 chip to an uncapped $1-2 game and within about 10 minutes had managed to lose it all. But that type is rare; usually it's the other sharks buying in 500x deep.